User talk:Lawnmowerman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-- Cactus.man ✍ 12:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] crawford castle

Hi lawnmowerman, i am totally new to this stuff and will check out the stuff above. I was just wanted to know your link to the crawford castle and if you would not mind sending me any excess info you have on it as I am doing research on my family as I am a crawford. my email address is terrorford@hotmail.com anything would be great. thanks

Terrorford 21:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crawford Castle

Hi Lawnmowerman, thanks for your message. It's entirely natural to have an attachment to articles that you have started, but once you upload it be prepared for it to be edited and altered by anybody and everybody. Normally this is a positive process and results in articles gradually expanding and improving (though not always, so be prepared to discuss things with other users on the talk page if necessary !!).

As to searching for buried antiquities at the castle, the site is a Scheduled Ancient Monument, so that is prohibited by statute. There will be a delineation of the boundaries in the scheduled listing however, and anything outwith those boundaries should be searchable with the permission of the relevant landowner. It would be best to check with the relevant bodies closer to the time however. Your first port of call should be The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland.

If I'm ever passing by the site I would be happy to stop and take some photographs for you. Good luck in your endeavours if and when you make it to Scotland, and I hope you have a great time. Best wishes. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lawnmowerman. Most of your editing questions will be answered in the various links in my welcome message above. It's a fair bit of reading, but the information is there, and it does take time. To continue a discussion in an existing section, just click on the edit link to the right immediately above the section heading. (You may need to edit your preferences to turn this on. Preferences -> Editing Tab ->check the Enable section editing via [edit] links checkbox).

It is normal to indent replies one step further from the last by prefixing your message with one or more colons. (Check the code here in the editing window to see how it's done)

This is indented further for example.

I very much doubt that you will get permission to use a detector within the boundaries of the Scheduled Monument. But be aware that even if you do get permission to search on private land outside of those boundaries, anything you find will not necessarily be your property. Scots law is fairly prescriptive in relation to archaeological finds. Check out these links: [1] and [2]. Financial compensation is normally given for anything claimed by the Crown however.

Thanks also for the suggestion about "The Lost Painting", but no I haven't read it. There's a good article for you to create !! --Cactus.man ✍ 17:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Just continue editing the Lindsay Tower page as normal, which I see you've now done :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 09:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting Edits

Hi UKPaolo - I was going to insert a photo into an article about Crawford Castle I created and you "reverted" it. I don't mind that you did it because I wasn't aware at the time it was copyrighted. My question is - how did you do it so fast? I put a sample picture in where I was going to put the real picture in and you removed it before I could download it? Also, does your "reverting" edit give me a bad reputation in this fine community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawnmowerman (talk • contribs)

Hi Lawnmowerman. As part of the ongoing fight against vandalism of Wikipedia I was browsing through recent changes (in fact, I was using a tool to help me do this faster). I noticed that you had made an edit in which the only change was to add an example image to the page, so I reverted it - that's all. I can assure you me having reverted you won't have given you a bad reputation at all. For reference, for help uploading and using images you may like to read Wikipedia:Uploading images and Wikipedia:Images. If you have any other queries, feel free to leave me a message. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 09:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response Notification

I replied on my talk page, to keep our discussion i one place. This is just to leave you word of my response where it will trigger your "new messages" flag, in case you've not watchlisted my talk page.
--Jerzy•t 23:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
You're again notified, counselor. [wink]
--Jerzy•t 16:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
And again. --Jerzy•t 18:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully helpful resonse on my talk.
--Jerzy•t 23:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: New Category of Article

Hi Lawnmowerman, thanks for your query. I'm no expert on Categories or Stubs, but just put in what seems most appropriate to me at the time and the army of others usually come along and fix things up soon if needed. That's the beauty of WP. You probably want to start your research at Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Stub, or ask some questions at the WikiProjects Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting. Hopefully this helps, good luck. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

_ _ Not remotely feasible -- in contrast with your concern abt documentation, which merely has no clear path to reality, even tho you may help it take place as the nature of WP evolves.
_ _ I recommend you concentrate more on studying WP documentation & looking at how experienced editors handle the situations you encounter in yr own editing. (In particular cases, recognize them by looking at least at their earliest contribution (for the date), and perhaps learn to use the edit-count tool tho you should take the cautions & reservations seriously; there are also 2K+ of experienced eds listed at WP:1000.)
_ _ In the long run you may find a role in improving verifiability standards, but Young Authors is the smoking gun re what was already my opinion. (That doesn't make me prescient; it's virtually inevitable for someone with so little experience in this unique environment.) Namely, you have far too little insight into the WP process to soon have any role in the kind of ambitions that you're feeling about the future of the project. And at this point neither you nor i has the remotest idea of what your long-term prospects for that are. But i hope you'll stick around and find out.
--Jerzy•t 15:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lawnmowerman, your "young author" idea is not really appropriate for WP. There are MANY young editors here but, ultimately, the articles that are created or added to do not "belong" to anybody in particular, but are the product of the collaborative work of the community at large. It is great that you are encouraging your children to contribute, but let them create their own accounts and their contributions will then be attributed accordingly in their edit history (and also on their user pages if they so desire). That is how attribution works here. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Lawnmowerman, your response to Jerzy was completely inappropriate. I don't know what history may exist between you both as users, but being civil is important, and personal attacks are not acceptable here on WP. These principles are some of the official policies we have, and violation of them can ultimately lead to you being blocked from editing. Please read the appropriate policy pages. I am trying to help you out here, please consider this before maligning others. Thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You have a point, but I couldn't make any sense of Jerzy's post. To me, it was just incoherent rambling and utterly incomprehensible. The incivility slipped by my simple radar, but you are correct that it is equally unacceptable. Anyway, please keep working away here, your contributions are welcome. BTW, I saw your request for the Blaeu Atlas of Scotland - an interesting topic. I moved it (and your other request) to Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board/Requested articles. You may wish to post future requests there. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both your voices, Mike, and have a nice life.
--Jerzy•t 19:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Crawfordcastle1.jpg listed for deletion

Sue Anne 05:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Crawford lindsay castle 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Crawford lindsay castle 1.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, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sue Anne 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Crawford castle.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Crawford castle.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ::Supergolden:: 11:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)