User talk:Blairtummock

Welcome!

Hello, Blairtummock, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Flapdragon 14:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baillieston

Hello, Blairtummock. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. The discussion can be found under the topic WP:ANI#Slow edit war at Baillieston. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. MER-C 03:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

thank you - that's very kind of you. well fancy that, because i am going to write about recent developments in the town among other things i plan to do - so don't be worried about it. it's all just time and effort and i do try to take care so i must give a thanks to you for sorting out my sentencing. areas of Dunfermline was removed though because i felt it was a waste of space and was something that i would have done a year ago with obessive shop references which i have learnt is not appropriate on wikipedia.Kilnburn (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just to keep you up to date, i should get round to adding a link to Duloch in the new modern Dunfermline sub-section in the next couple of days. Kilnburn (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a link has been made onto the Duloch page via the areas of Dunfermline at the bottom of the article. the sub-section that i was going to do, never occured and my attempts to create a wikitable proved to be a bit of a struggle, even though it is not too bad. the spaces between the areas was the problem and if you care to look or have the time, can you please fix. thank you. Kilnburn (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of places in Glasgow. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Phil Bridger, you may be blocked from editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Provanhall, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Provanhall. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 10:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing, including edit warring over a prolonged period, persistently editing against clear consensus, removing legitimate comments from another user's talk page, personal attack, hiding a controversial edit under an edit summary claiming you were doing something completely different, etc. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text , but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason= I am only interested in facts and have positively contributed in all my edits. The user Phil Bridger has jumped on assumptions, which is against wiki guidelines, he just wants to construct their pretty little narrative about the world, regardless of whether or not it has any bearing on reality. If one looks here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Provanhall) Phil Bridger keeps using the term 'provenhall' - the article I want removed/edited is Provanhall. He obviously does not know what he is talking about and has not given me a chance. Provanhall is a neighbourhood of Easterhouse, Glasgow. Easterhouse is a district of Glasgow. Part of a district cannot be a district of the larger entity. It is not a distinct community and is a council estate with houses built from the 1950's onwards, as part of the Easterhouse scheme. The primary school is part of Glasgow's primary schools system. The Provan Hall is near the housing estate - actually the 1950s houses are built on the former estate, but so is most of Easterhouse as per the map I added to the Eaterhouse article. There are other neighbourhoods (not officially recognized - Provanhall, Blairtummock, Moriehall, South Rogerfield, Commonhead, Easthall and Bishops Loch. These are not distinct entities and have no identity outwith the Easterhouse identity). Phil Bridger is the real disruptive user by blocking my attempts to remove the article as being not worthy of having a WIKI page. I am fine to edit it if one must keep it. The place MUST be removed form the areas of Glasgow list as it is 100% not a district of the city. Remember that everything has to be verifiable and this is not a verifiable district}}

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Hello, I'm Mutt Lunker. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Berwick-upon-Tweed seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Berwick-upon-Tweed. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Germans may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

* [[Friedrich Kellner]] (1885–1970, diarist of [[My Opposition]]
* [[Catherine the Great] (1729–1796), Empress of Russia

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dunfermline High School‎

Hi, I noticed that you have added Dunfermline High School‎ to the list of oldest schools. I've put a request on talk: Dunfermline High School‎ for citations and more information. The list covers extant schools, a lengthy gap would mean that the later date needs to be used, still pretty early though. I'm not going to query its inclusion for the moment, let's see what comes of the of the request first. If you have sources or can improve the main article, please do so! Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blairtummock. Following the above there was a discussion on the talk page of the school. It appears that the 1468 date is the more reliable for the extant school. On another, minor, point: last time I looked Dunfermline was in Scotland, not England! Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Blairtummock. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Blairtummock. 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)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Black stane has been accepted

Black stane, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements needed at Black stane

I approved your draft, but it still needs some work. Most prominently, your introduction is very vague. Your first couple sentences (introduction) should give a full who-what-why-when-where. You currently cover the who and vaguely the what, but you don't make clear right at the start what the timeline of this practice is (and the word "ancient" is kind of confusing there). Also, the article fails to explicitly note what the "stane" literally is; it's an actual stone one sits or stands on during the event, yes? That could be made clearer right in the introduction. Note too you can check GoogleBooks to find sources that help to explain this tradition. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Blairtummock. 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)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:United college crest.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:United college crest.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]