| Revision as of 19:06, 6 August 2024 editMutt Lunker (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers41,672 edits →Bloating in Gaels articles: posted← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:00, 5 January 2025 edit undoPampuco (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users11,815 edits →Postnominal letters and infoboxes | ||
| (43 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Featured article review of Infant School == | |||
| == Merge discussion at ] == | |||
| The article ] is currently going through a ]. Parts of the article are relevant to Scotland. Any comments would be appreciated. ] (]) 13:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ], which is within the scope of this WikiProject. There is a proposal to merge this article into ]. ] (]) 10:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| == Requested move at ] == | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 14:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 14:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| I'm on the fence about sending it to AfD in the near future. It's got coverage in BBC, but it's about the waterway. I welcome input. ] (]) 15:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The article ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
| <blockquote>'''This whole page reads like an overly detailed promotional pamphlet for the Robert Gordon University, and the main ] article has most, if not all, of the useful information from this article in its ] section'''</blockquote> | |||
| == Bloating in Gaels articles, again == | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
| Per ], ] continues to engulf articles, largely regarding Scottish Gaels, with masses of ill-considered material. I had been trying to keep an eye on certain affected articles but recently had little time or access for a couple of weeks and, on return, the mass of additions is simply too much to assess without the allocation of considerable time. I thus can't say for certain but there are indications that the edits display the very same problematic characteristics as before. The use of edit summaries is still vanishingly rare and I see that they have been picked up, for a recent example, (thanks {{ping|Boredintheevening}}), so it would seem likely that other characteristics continue as before, notably, and to quote myself from the previous thread, "the inclusion of large passages of material which, though arguably broadly related, do not really apply directly to the subject of the articles in question, making the articles bloated and unfocused", use of primary sources, assertions not supported by sources given, highly partial phrasing, the repetition of large sections of peripherally-related text across multiple articles (rather than, e.g. a link to a main article on the subject), as well as ] and ] issues. I also suspect that material that had been in dispute and removed by myself and other editors has been restored but there is simply too much to keep up with it all. ] (]) 12:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| :I just spent some time browsing the editor's history and taking stock of the ongoing problems. I'll try to keep an eye out for other instances. Completely concur with your assessment, and honestly quite baffled that this disruptive behaviour is persisting. ] (]) 13:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ] exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 01:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is it worth taking this to the admin noticeboard? The editor does not seem to use edit summaries other than occasionally, which for an editor with 33k edits is a real problem. ] <small>(])</small> 07:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I previously lodged ] and, as a consequence, ]. These were to no particular effect, doubtless not helped by my repurposing the ANI, after a misunderstanding. I'm happy to support any further submission to ANI but, per lack of sufficient time for scrutiny of the campaign of changes, not sure I can devote time to leading one, currently. ] (]) 11:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| a particularly disruptive edit and, no surprise, not a word in the summary. ] (]) 19:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I've left the editor a note re edit summaries. Let's hope they listen. ] <small>(])</small> 22:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fair enough but I won't hold my breath. If you search their talk page for the term "edit summar" (for singular and plural instances), mentions are in the 20s. From (before the page history was lost in some puzzling attempt at redirection), further mentions of the term are in the 30s. In their previous incarnation as ], 10 mentions on the talk page, stretching as far back as 2010. If this individual is genuine about their repeated resolutions to comply re edit summaries, there is a chronic competence issue. | |||
| ::That they are "trying to plough through a lot of information" for "those who use this site to seek the truth" encapsulates their campaign well, alarm bells ringing. ] (]) 10:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::And an example of ], typical of their edits. ] (]) 10:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Regarding their latest resolution to use edit summaries, that's going about as well as their previous promises. Of the 85 edits since, 17 have had some sort of summary but many are as uninformative and misrepresenative of quite significant changes as "little fixes". Even that frequency is tailing off, with two in the last 37. ] (]) 11:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's a further 63 edits since the above, a grand total of 2 with edit summaries. Time for that ANI, {{ping|Espresso Addict}}? ] (]) 12:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ], formerly the Scottish Association for the Speaking of Verse == | |||
| == Nationality discussion at ] == | |||
| Any help with this would be appreciated. It was recently prodded, and I've been trying to find more sources to show notability and reference the article. It looks as if the association went under recently (2023?) and the website is dead. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 07:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| There is a discussion currently ongoing at ] regarding a controversial change in the band's nationality, which may be of interest to project members. The discussion is titled ]. Thanks. ] (]) 16:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Seeking Input on early Stewart/Stuart Scotland for ] Article Rewrite == | |||
| == Requested move at ] == | |||
| ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 02:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hi all, | |||
| == Requested move at ] == | |||
| I’m currently undertaking a comprehensive rewrite of the ] article, aiming to provide a balanced and thorough account of their history, culture and society. As someone of Borders descent with mixed English-Scottish heritage, I’ve worked hard to bring in both perspectives. I’ve done a thorough job on the English side and tried to incorporate as much of the Scottish context as I can, but I find myself lacking sufficient texts on the pre-Flodden Borders, particularly from the Scottish side. | |||
| ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| For the so-called "Heyday of the Reivers" (1513–1606), which I haven't yet started, I have plenty of texts and knowledge covering both sides of the old border, but earlier periods—especially the Scottish Border laws, notable figures, and their integration with or resistance to the Crown—are areas where I’d greatly appreciate input. | |||
| == RFC at RSN: The Telegraph on trans issues == | |||
| If anyone has expertise, resources, or suggestions for further reading, I’d love to collaborate or hear your thoughts. Please feel free to reply here or reach out directly. | |||
| Hello! There is ] at ] regarding a subject relevant to this Wikiproject. ] (]) 06:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks in advance for any assistance! | |||
| Lategreatanddead ] (]) 20:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == UK sub-national geographic flags discussion == | |||
| :That you wish to co-operate is heartening but co-operation entails paying heed to concerns about your editing, placed on (and blanked from) your talk page, not warring to restore material that has been contested or removing maintenance templates before a consensus has been reached to do so. You are making very significant additions and changes to this article, so please engage with editors who are expressing concerns. ] (]) 15:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I understand the point about co-operating and take it seriously. But co-operation works both ways. If someone adds a tag or calls something "LLM gobblygook," they should at least check the references, read it properly, and explain. Throwing around comments like that is lazy and rude. | |||
| ::It’s easy for some editor I asked for help to make accusations like this, I mean I do it myself without reason - I don't know how it'll stand. But if you’ve got the time to accuse, you’ve got the time to check. Every source is real. You can see for yourself how much I’ve worked on this—fixing grammar, spelling, and rewriting sentences again and again. This isn’t what you get spat out of a machine; it’s effort, plain and simple. | |||
| ::If tags can be added lazily, why can’t I remove them the same way when I know they’re wrong? I’m open to proper discussions if there’s a real issue. But all I want is for the page to be accurate and balanced. Co-operation means everyone putting in the same level of care and respect. | |||
| ::I have found all of you Misplaced Pages editors extraordinarily rude and unhelpful. ] (]) 15:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is what co-operation looks like. You are not being "accused". ] (]) 16:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To be fair, I'm not accusing you of anything but some fella who went to with questions just came along and slammed a big LLM sticker on 'my' article on Border Reivers without checking the sources. Everyones free to check the sources, but I'd hope some effort is made before thrusting these stickers like away supporters with their team badge. ] (]) 16:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I've opened ] about sub-national UK flags, including historic county and council area flags. Anyone is welcome to participate. ] (]) 10:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I came across this locality in relation of U.S. history. The draft I developed was declined so I would be glad to have help expanding it and having it added to mainsapce. The barony and history of descendants is pretty interesting. Thanks! ] (]) 13:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Postnominal letters and infoboxes== | |||
| == Bloating in Gaels articles == | |||
| See ] for discussion. -- ] (]) 15:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Infobox for the Falls of Clyde? == | |||
| I’ve become aware of similarities in some problematic aspects in various articles regarding notable Scottish Gaels. The major concern is the inclusion of large passages of material which, though arguably broadly related, does not really apply directly to the subject of the articles in question, making the articles bloated and unfocused. As a recent example, I’ve just removed from the ] article, which included original research about the subject’s ''not'' being covered in popular culture but that a beach connected with him had been, as well as much material about the historical period but not directly about the subject’s part in or relation to it. I haven’t tackled ] yet but it appears to directly feature the subject only occasionally. Other examples are ], which included and at ]. | |||
| Hi everybody, me and another user, ], do not agree whether having the <nowiki>{{Infobox waterfall}}</nowiki> in the ] article is useful for our readers. Instead of starting an edit war, I prefer asking an assessment to users expert and interested in this topic. You can look both at the history of the article and at the contributions of mine and of Zacwill to make your own idea on it. I'd be grateful of your contribution, which I'll accept whatever it will be.--] (]) 21:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Outwith the category of notable Gaels, inclusion of material at ] may be related. That the source material relates to an organisation that is most notable for their hostility to the subject of the article but does not in fact regard the latter is an impressive find. | |||
| Accompanying common characteristics are editorialising language, reverential, adulatory or POV phrasing, questionable capitalisations of terms, questionable ENGVAR spellings and terms (e.g., variously, “Meanwhile,” “However,” “the Bard”, “’’posse’’ of Redcoats”). | |||
| It may be circumstantial but each of these articles has been edited extensively by ], so pinging them as a courtesy. | |||
| The articles I have listed may benefit from further attention and pruning but I am concerned that there may be others similarly affected. Has anyone else noted such? ] (]) 12:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :] - various sections. ] ]] 15:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah yes, that rings a bell. Looks like I may have clocked this in 2020 but didn't address much and the issues have amplified significantly in the interim. Also to note, the earlier campaign was by ], without the inclusion of the two number "1"s, per the current editor's similar handle. ] (]) 16:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Some highly partial and choice phrasing throughout. "the Whig single party state's apologists"! I've also seen this unfounded claim in other articles: "It is widely believed that Whig poet Robert Burns was the first Poet Laureate of Scotland." To my knowledge, this is never claimed, the post being non-existent, and Burns notably expressing as much in the way of Jacobite sympathies in his works. The bulk of the article comes across as pretty questionable. ] (]) 16:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::If , summarised "As my use of period spellings and capitalisations has been cited as a problem, I have corrected them in this section." is in reponse to the above, it shows an erroneous understanding. Quotes should be represented as they were. Secondary to the the issue of the lack of discrimination in the large quantitty of material being added as it is, this issue is with ''your'' own text, where you routinely use non-British and culturally inappropriate terms and spellings and you capitalise terms which do not require to be. | |||
| :::As I become more familiar with the edits, I am increasingly concerned about issues of neutrality with these articles. The articles are essay-like, a "case" appears to being built, those on one "side" are referred to reverentially, those perceived as on the other with contempt, contemptible though many of them may be. I suspect the sourcing may be partial and original research, not warranted by the sources, appears to be being inserted. ] (]) 22:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Can anyone suggest a way forward with the problems in these articles as the task of sorting through all the material would be considerable? | |||
| I've taken a look at the lead section of ] alone and it's a vast a miscellany of material about the subject, in no particular order and in no way fulfilling the function of "an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents". Much of the material therein would be of questionable pertinence to the main body, let alone the lead. | |||
| Much of the material that has been added, largely by one individual, may of worth and pertinence and well sourced but it's difficult to assess this, the articles having been swamped, the tone reverential, the structure incoherent. (On sourcing, as a tabloid, is The National regarded as a RS?) | |||
| The best good start would be if ] could cease the addition of any new material until they have gone over what they have already added, excising off-topic material, addressing the tone. and removing material not supported by their sources, or synthesised from them. Failing that, it seems drastic but would reverting to versions before the swamping of the articles be acceptable to the community? Is putting them up for assessment a suitable way of formally noting deficiencies and indicating appropriate action? ] (]) 13:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This is, after all, a collaborative project and I am certainly okay with that fact. I do believe that history is nuanced and complex and I do try to bring that across when editing | |||
| : whenever possiblIf, as often seems to be the case about important figures in the Scottish Gaelic literary canon, the limited sources I have are only reverential in tone, it can be difficult to convey nuance unless I find it in other sources over time. Sometimes canonical poets live lives that are inspirational and other times contemptible, but we are all trying in our edits to be as objective as humanly possible and to correct bias whenever we see it. With regard to ], I have included that he was unfaithful to his wife and was also obscenely dirty, and I mean filthy and borderline pornographic, in a number of his poems. I have chosen not to attack him morally for those facts and to simply reported them impassively as possible. I have also also added, however, that repeated ] of those same poems over the past 200 years has attracted very harsh criticism from a number of literary scholars, including the late ], despite the latter having been a very staunch adherent of ]. Regarding ], I personally find his expressed desire in "The Song of the Poison", for the complete annihilation of the ] by fire from heaven to be horrifying, which is why I found it so ironic to learn many years into researching him and expanding his article that his first experience of poison gas was actually in a ] incident. It certainly brings home how badly that war was fought by both sides and how wasteful and unnecessary it was, but even so I added that information to put the poem into context while trying not to judge Dòmhnall. I am trying to take your concerns into account and am looking forward to working with you to improve these articles. Best Wishes.] (]) 16:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)e. | |||
| Regarding the bloating of the articles, I see you have made a few edits in that regard at Alasdair mac Mhaighstir Alasdair but much more is required. The issues of tone and bias can be dealt with more easily when the material has been trimmed and made more focused. This is only a quick and rough start at the lead, but at ] might give you an indication of some of the issues that are required to bring more focus to the various articles and to reduce bias. Please can you take on more trimming? (And any others who'd care to; I see there has been some intervention.) ] (]) 09:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I've noted concerns about neutrality and tone specific to Alexander Cameron ], though there are similar issues at other articles mentioned above. ] (]) 20:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I've just clocked that the article is overwhelmingly sourced to a single work and this is self-published. That surely throws the reliability of the article in grave doubt. This returns me to my inclination that the only way to address the multiple issues is to revert to a version prior to the intervention. ] (]) 10:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : would appear to be suitable revision, without the swathes of self-pub material, tone and neutrality issues and considerably more focused. ] (]) 11:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I held off from restoring this last credible revision when I saw that a small number of passages, reliant on the self-published source, had had additional sources, potentially more credible, noted at these passages. I'd hoped that this may indicate a start to the very sizeable task of properly sourcing the material, or purging that only supported by the questionable source. To tag after these minimal tweaks shows some front and a complete lack of appreciation of the task in hand. ] indicates the majority of the numerous citations are to this one work which should, ideally, not be being used at all. ] (]) 10:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Considerable editing continues to the article, none in any signicant way to remove the mass of material reliant on the self-pub source. A week's wait seems long enough, so last good version it is. ] (]) 12:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have come across something similar now at ]. However, in my absence for a year or three the whole article, (not just Gaelic era history) once close to GA status, is now so full of unsourced statements and absurd footnotes that I fear it is not really salvageable. ] ]] 10:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh dear, so I see. I remember the article being very good at the time of a visit to Eigg a few years ago but much of it has nose-dived since. I've encountered numerous other articles so-affected. Eigg would be considerably improved with a straight revert to its GA-proximal version. Such action at the Cameron article was met with reversion, removal of maintenance templates, no effort to address sourcing concerns and a doubling down of the addition of bloat. One characterstic of the editing is the packing of the text with very lengthy quotes. This may have a copyvio side issue. | |||
| :::::Not all the edits may be so-motivated but a good indication of a fooist agenda is that criticism of edits must be inspired by anti-fooism, so make what you will of . ] (]) 12:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Eigg was and remains in quite a state - it's a broad issue here as quite substantial numbers of edits were made by accounts later blocked as sockpuppets. In fact as a more general topic I note that my watchlist is largely cluttered up with bots amending talk pages, wikignomes messing about with 'short descriptions', POV-pushing/conflict of interest edits, etc. Maybe I spend too much time in rural Scotland but I am beginning to wonder if, outside of scence articles, we have many genuine editors anymore. Apologies - back on topic, take a look at ]. ] ]] 08:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Never lose hope; there are plenty of genuine editors still around and improvements are still being made. I just looked at Eigg and those footnotes are excessive! ] (]) 08:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The problems at ] fit with those also at ]. There's particular activity at ] currently, with much editorialising and off-topic diversions, so some extra eyes would be appreciated. | |||
| Would assessment/re-assessments of affected articles be a useful way of formally recording the issues and perhaps convincing those responsible of the detrimental effect? This is not an area in which I am experienced. ] (]) 17:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :You could try ] - I have no direct experience of it that I can recall however. ] ]] 11:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::]. ] (]) 19:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Shapinsay at FAR == | |||
| ] was nominated for a ] in November of last year. I had dealt with the bulk of the queries by March this year. After some additional input there has been no further comment for over a month. However, so far only one editor has been kind enough to support FA status being retained. The discussion page is at ] and any input is welcome. ] ]] 08:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:00, 5 January 2025
 | This talk page is for discussing the core work of the WikiProject, ie. our drive to improve the quality of our key Scotland-related articles, focussing on Misplaced Pages 1.0 and beyond. |
 | This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate!
|
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Scotland and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | Points of interest related to Scotland on Misplaced Pages: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
 Archives |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 91 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Featured article review of Infant School
The article infant school is currently going through a featured article review. Parts of the article are relevant to Scotland. Any comments would be appreciated. Llewee (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Ben Nevis
Ben Nevis has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Seagull Trust Cruises
I'm on the fence about sending it to AfD in the near future. It's got coverage in BBC, but it's about the waterway. I welcome input. Graywalls (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Bloating in Gaels articles, again
Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland/Archive_13#Bloating_in_Gaels_articles this previous thread, User:K1ngstowngalway1 continues to engulf articles, largely regarding Scottish Gaels, with masses of ill-considered material. I had been trying to keep an eye on certain affected articles but recently had little time or access for a couple of weeks and, on return, the mass of additions is simply too much to assess without the allocation of considerable time. I thus can't say for certain but there are indications that the edits display the very same problematic characteristics as before. The use of edit summaries is still vanishingly rare and I see that they have been picked up, for a recent example, for the use of peacock terms (thanks @Boredintheevening:), so it would seem likely that other characteristics continue as before, notably, and to quote myself from the previous thread, "the inclusion of large passages of material which, though arguably broadly related, do not really apply directly to the subject of the articles in question, making the articles bloated and unfocused", use of primary sources, assertions not supported by sources given, highly partial phrasing, the repetition of large sections of peripherally-related text across multiple articles (rather than, e.g. a link to a main article on the subject), as well as WP:ENGVAR and WP:MOS issues. I also suspect that material that had been in dispute and removed by myself and other editors has been restored but there is simply too much to keep up with it all. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- I just spent some time browsing the editor's history and taking stock of the ongoing problems. I'll try to keep an eye out for other instances. Completely concur with your assessment, and honestly quite baffled that this disruptive behaviour is persisting. Boredintheevening (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Is it worth taking this to the admin noticeboard? The editor does not seem to use edit summaries other than occasionally, which for an editor with 33k edits is a real problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I previously lodged Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_112#Bloating_and_neutrality,_largely_in_Scottish_articles and, as a consequence, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1163#Multiple_editing_issues,_largely_at_Scottish_articles_Slow_warring_at_Alexander_Cameron_(priest). These were to no particular effect, doubtless not helped by my repurposing the ANI, after a misunderstanding. I'm happy to support any further submission to ANI but, per lack of sufficient time for scrutiny of the campaign of changes, not sure I can devote time to leading one, currently. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Is it worth taking this to the admin noticeboard? The editor does not seem to use edit summaries other than occasionally, which for an editor with 33k edits is a real problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Here's a particularly disruptive edit and, no surprise, not a word in the summary. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've left the editor a note re edit summaries. Let's hope they listen. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough but I won't hold my breath. If you search their talk page for the term "edit summar" (for singular and plural instances), mentions are in the 20s. From a previous version of the talk page in August (before the page history was lost in some puzzling attempt at redirection), further mentions of the term are in the 30s. In their previous incarnation as User talk:Kingstowngalway, 10 mentions on the talk page, stretching as far back as 2010. If this individual is genuine about their repeated resolutions to comply re edit summaries, there is a chronic competence issue.
- That they are "trying to plough through a lot of information" for "those who use this site to seek the truth" encapsulates their campaign well, alarm bells ringing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- And here's an example of WP:EDITORIALISING, typical of their edits. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding their latest resolution to use edit summaries, that's going about as well as their previous promises. Of the 85 edits since, 17 have had some sort of summary but many are as uninformative and misrepresenative of quite significant changes as "little fixes". Even that frequency is tailing off, with two in the last 37. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's a further 63 edits since the above, a grand total of 2 with edit summaries. Time for that ANI, @Espresso Addict:? Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding their latest resolution to use edit summaries, that's going about as well as their previous promises. Of the 85 edits since, 17 have had some sort of summary but many are as uninformative and misrepresenative of quite significant changes as "little fixes". Even that frequency is tailing off, with two in the last 37. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Poetry Association of Scotland, formerly the Scottish Association for the Speaking of Verse
Any help with this would be appreciated. It was recently prodded, and I've been trying to find more sources to show notability and reference the article. It looks as if the association went under recently (2023?) and the website is dead. Thanks! Espresso Addict (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Seeking Input on early Stewart/Stuart Scotland for Border Reivers Article Rewrite
Hi all, I’m currently undertaking a comprehensive rewrite of the Border Reivers article, aiming to provide a balanced and thorough account of their history, culture and society. As someone of Borders descent with mixed English-Scottish heritage, I’ve worked hard to bring in both perspectives. I’ve done a thorough job on the English side and tried to incorporate as much of the Scottish context as I can, but I find myself lacking sufficient texts on the pre-Flodden Borders, particularly from the Scottish side.
For the so-called "Heyday of the Reivers" (1513–1606), which I haven't yet started, I have plenty of texts and knowledge covering both sides of the old border, but earlier periods—especially the Scottish Border laws, notable figures, and their integration with or resistance to the Crown—are areas where I’d greatly appreciate input.
If anyone has expertise, resources, or suggestions for further reading, I’d love to collaborate or hear your thoughts. Please feel free to reply here or reach out directly. Thanks in advance for any assistance!
Lategreatanddead Lategreatanddead (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- That you wish to co-operate is heartening but co-operation entails paying heed to concerns about your editing, placed on (and blanked from) your talk page, not warring to restore material that has been contested or removing maintenance templates before a consensus has been reached to do so. You are making very significant additions and changes to this article, so please engage with editors who are expressing concerns. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understand the point about co-operating and take it seriously. But co-operation works both ways. If someone adds a tag or calls something "LLM gobblygook," they should at least check the references, read it properly, and explain. Throwing around comments like that is lazy and rude.
- It’s easy for some editor I asked for help to make accusations like this, I mean I do it myself without reason - I don't know how it'll stand. But if you’ve got the time to accuse, you’ve got the time to check. Every source is real. You can see for yourself how much I’ve worked on this—fixing grammar, spelling, and rewriting sentences again and again. This isn’t what you get spat out of a machine; it’s effort, plain and simple.
- If tags can be added lazily, why can’t I remove them the same way when I know they’re wrong? I’m open to proper discussions if there’s a real issue. But all I want is for the page to be accurate and balanced. Co-operation means everyone putting in the same level of care and respect.
- I have found all of you Misplaced Pages editors extraordinarily rude and unhelpful. Lategreatanddead (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is what co-operation looks like. You are not being "accused". Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- To be fair, I'm not accusing you of anything but some fella who went to with questions just came along and slammed a big LLM sticker on 'my' article on Border Reivers without checking the sources. Everyones free to check the sources, but I'd hope some effort is made before thrusting these stickers like away supporters with their team badge. Lategreatanddead (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is what co-operation looks like. You are not being "accused". Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Arnage, Aberdeenshire
I came across this locality in relation of U.S. history. The draft I developed was declined so I would be glad to have help expanding it and having it added to mainsapce. The barony and history of descendants is pretty interesting. Thanks! FloridaArmy (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Postnominal letters and infoboxes
See Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biography#MOS:POSTNOM for discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Infobox for the Falls of Clyde?
Hi everybody, me and another user, Zacwill, do not agree whether having the {{Infobox waterfall}} in the Falls of Clyde article is useful for our readers. Instead of starting an edit war, I prefer asking an assessment to users expert and interested in this topic. You can look both at the history of the article and at the contributions of mine and of Zacwill to make your own idea on it. I'd be grateful of your contribution, which I'll accept whatever it will be.--Pampuco (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: