Talk:Registered Buildings and Conservation Areas of the Isle of Man/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Request for comments on Kate's Cottage coverage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Editor Agljones has repeatedly disputed the brief and noncontroversial (as far as I can tell) coverage in this list article about Kate's Cottage. In this edit just now they again removed the content "Cottage built by 1869." which was supported by reference (which they left in) to ""Registered Building No. 117" (PDF). With photo."

Agljones, I appreciate that your edit did not mix in many different changes so that this specific, manageable topic can be discussed here in this focused discussion section I have just opened. To others, I think Agljones has commented about Kate's Cottage in the midst of one or more long posts in unfocussed discussion sections above, and at Talk:Keppel Gate, Isle of Man, and at Talk:Kate's Cottage.

Agljones' edit summary is "The inline citation does not support edit (988824400). See talk:page discussion No 117. Use of linked COPYVIO user-generated source. Wikipedia does not permit the use of Primary Sources in this context or introduce vague or inaccurate information.)". But, Agljones, the source does specifically support the statement: the source reports that the place appeared on maps from 1869 on. The place (all or part of it) must have been built by 1869 then. The statement is supported by the source and is not "inaccurate", nor is it "vague". If you have alternative substantive suggested text supported by the given source or by other reliable source, now would be the time to suggest it. The statement is not copied from the source, so it is inconceivable that it represents is a copyright violation. And, primary sources can be used in Wikipedia "with care" per wp:PRIMARY, as was done here. Agljones is fully aware of all of these factors in general and specifically in reference to Kate's Cottage from many many many previous discussions.

Agljones, will you abide by consensus that may be established here? Others, would you please comment narrowly about suitable coverage for Kate's Cottage in this list-article? --Doncram (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

My first thought was why is this not being discussed in Kate's Cottage, Isle of Man. This is the primary article on the subject any issues should be discussed there, not in a big list article. I see nothing wrong in using a official government document as the source for this date nor do I think the source should be dis-allowed as a WP:Primary Source. It's not a primary source, that would be the 1860 map. This would be a secondary source citing the primary source. It's not a self-published or user-generated source either, it's not put forth by the owner of the cottage to promote it in any way, it's a government document stating a non-controversial fact. I have added the ref to Kate's Cottage, Isle of Man and it should go back here. MB 16:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

MB - this was introduced to Kate's Cottage by myself during 2018 (in this diff) and you can see that Agljones systematically attacked the article afterwards (with only one minor change in between), specifically deleting the infobox parameter with ref, and also other content including the image locations, the latter being was repeated at many articles. This here is just the tip-of-the-iceberg of massive WP:OWNershsip issues going back to my first involvement in May 2014, causing me to abandon the topic until 2015, and has increased in severity since 2017. Per the offer (where Agljones followed me to Commons) seen in this diff, you are welcome to DM me for further info but please note well the caveat which should not be considered trivial. Also note my sign-off "I am about finished with Wikipe/media, but this nomination is the prompt I needed to return", which still applies - I have no time presently to progress wider matters against this spurious wikilawyering and continued disruption, but will lurk to accumulate the continued bad faith wikihostility, as I find it to be both pathetic and amusing. Also note that the OWNership extended to the image file description, and was picked up by a Commons admin at c:User talk:Agljones#Wikpedia vs. Commons. Thx.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The editor USER:Rocknrollmancer has previously received a formal warning by an uninvolved editor User:Drmies for using “laundry lists” and also warned about unnecessary Single purpose Account (SPA) claims and tagging articles with unnecessary Conflict of Interests (COI) claims due only to editor disagreement. A single issue 'laundry list' or double issue 'laundry list' is still a “Laundry List” and repeating the claims or making new claims may be seen as 'supermarket shopping' by other editors. Editors should not use talk:pages as forum pages, refrain from hat notes or create further sections (a hat note in another form.) agljones(talk)11:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it matters, Agljones, but in dozens of disagreements over the years it is traditional for you to try to discredit me, not Rocknrollmancer, about User:Drmies having once (in an unrelated, non-Isle of Man matter) saying something generic about "laundry lists" not being desirable. Long ago, you might have actually presented a diff to support the accusation against me, but really please let's not bother. Agljones is maybe right to bring up the idea of hatting comments, which in Wikipedia practice is sometimes useful in editors dealing with off-topic rants on Talk pages. Indeed I think an uninvolved editor would be inclined to hat both of the last two comments and this partial response by me, as off-topic to the narrow question of this request for comments. All readers, please ignore but don't edit or hat Agljones or Rocknrollmancer or my comments that are off-topic, else this discussion section too will get bombed with far more off-topic stuff. Instead, again, what should this list-article say about Kate's Cottage? --Doncram (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

So far, by my tally, MB ("it should go back") and Rocknrollmancer (the phrase "was introduced to Kate's Cottage by myself during 2018") have spoken in support of restoring the brief phrase about Kate's Cottage, and I support that too, and Agljones has not spoken either way. --Doncram (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The formal warning to the editor USER:Rocknrollmancer was in respect to a substantial related Isle of Man article matter. The editor User:doncram commented extensively on the same substantive Isle of Man article matter and then received a generalised warning from the same editor User:Drmies. There is an connection with the warning, as the editor USER:Rocknrollmancer used a source which the same editor considers to be substantially biased and introduced placeholder text and commercial styled advertising from the same source. The previous comments are relevant as the USER:doncram at the time was under permanent probation and has recently been warned about creating directory styled articles. The editor USER:doncram has also repeatedly been blocked for hat notes and hat comments.

Wikipedia policy is specific that an inline citation has to support the material directly and the burden of proof lies with the editor either adding or reverting text WP:V, WP:BURDEN. The policies does not allow for trying to determine an editor consensus for text from a source that cannot be verified. The editor consensus is actually that issues should be transferred to the appropriate talk:page article. Another editor has admitted to using the same placeholder text from a generalised source which the editor previously considered to be unreliable (editors may refer to this talk:page discussion about the same issue). In general, directory style articles should not have comments. In this article, it has introduced substantial rambling commentaries, which are inaccurate, vague, time-sensitive/out-of-date. The comments are also non-encyclopaedic with issues of Original Research WP:OR (eg No 27) which are out of context with the initial registration, the executive summary and applications for Registered Building Consent (ie No 117). This is also an extensive criticism of the US NRHP articles which fundamentally does not explain the connection between the listings and the under-lying planning functions.

For this article and the issues of article notability, the use of secondary sources that are independent of the source and the stub executive summary can be found at this discussion. agljones(talk) 17:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I have never received ANY warning at all from Drmies, or anyone else of consequence; actually only now-blocked 72bikers and (one of) a (range) series of American IP addresses, also blocked at one time, spring to mind. I surmise that Drmies (un-pinged), being WP:INVOLVED, has wisely de facto/informally recused his or herself long ago.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, Agljones, I think you have not given any suggestion for alternative text, nor have you specifically given any objection to the text you removed. You do have generalized complaints relating to past stuff, I guess, whether or not you or I or Rocknrollmancer recall correctly about any of that (though I think Rocknrollmancer is correct). Besides the fact that you have provided no diffs or other actual evidence that anyone uninvolved could review, those generalized complaints are simply not relevant IMO. So, I think the consensus here is support for restoring the text which you removed, and there is no actual opposition, not even from you as far as I can tell. Can you please accept that? --Doncram (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The editor User:doncram is requested not to create further sections which may be considered actually part of the current BRD discussion in this section . The editor USER:doncram is asked not to use talk:pages as a forum or team-tag with other editors Wikipedia:TAGTEAM which may be seen as Wikipedia:Meat puppetry. Editors are requested not to use the edit summary as an extension of the talk:page discussion.

It is now presumed that the editor USER:Rocknrollmancer has now read, accepted and now formally acknowledged the comments that editors may consider as a warning from USER:Drmies from this talk:page discussion [1] 17 March 2017 (UTC) and this further talk:page section of 17 March 2017 (UTC) by the same editor [2]. The editor User:doncram is aware of both talk:page posting after writing a 864 word review [3] on the the same talk:page and confirmed that the editor User:doncram had been "pinged" by the editor User:Drmies on the same day, the 17th March 2017. The editor User:Drmies replied to the comments made by the User:doncram on the same talk:page section of the editor USER:Rocknrollmancer with two comments [4], [5] which may be considered that the editor USER:doncram had received a very generalised editor warning on the 17 March 2017 (UTC).

There is no real issue of communication as it appears that the editor User:doncram is now able to read Wikipedia diffs (actually not a policy but an editor courtesy) and for some reason able to post the correct end user time date-stamp in the edit below [6] (?) There is again no issue of communication if editors do not refer to any Wikipedia policy or refer to any direct article issue. Editors that create further sections are like to attract off-topic comments and cause subjects to become confused and broken-up. The editor consensus is actually that the relevant discussion should be transferred to this article talk:page. There is already an on-going BRD discussion for this article.This discussion is now closed. agljones(talk)10:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC) 11:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC) agljones(talk)10:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 15:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

By "This discussion is now closed", do you mean that you think you have proven your case against including the short text? Or do you mean that you agree with the consensus that the text is reasonable? You are not clear, you don't actually say! Accusing others of tag-teaming is off-topic. Your restatement of allegations about a supposed warning is off-topic, I am sure, and further it is a violation of Wikipedia policy/guidelines/practice for you to make negative allegations without evidence ... please provide a diff to whatever that warning is, or please shut up about it.

I see that in your edit at 12:01 of a section above that you state "For information for other editors if they wish to analyse a source then they can refer to the registration documents for No 117 (not linked due to COPYVIO) which states that the building was constructed at the start of the ninetieth [sic] century and not before 1869."

By "the registration documents for No 117" you mean this document, the one used as reference in this list-article, right? It is simply not a copyright violation to link to a document, any document. If you mean a different document, please please please provide a link to it, so that I/we can understand you. This document, anyhow, states the building appeared on maps in 1869, so it follows that it was built before 1869. It does not include a statement that the building was constructed at the start of the nineteenth century.

But suppose it did say that. You seem to imply there is a contradiction, but now I wonder you may have a simple misunderstanding of what the nineteenth century is? The 19th century is the 1800s; it is not the 1900s. At the start of the 1800s is in fact before 1869! So at least it can be said that it was built before 1869. If you could provide a different source that identifies a more specific year or year-range, that would be great, but you have to provide a link to it, or provide directions so that others can access it in some other way (even if we have to request a hard copy from some government office, or whatever), or it cannot be used.

Agljones, I am honestly trying to understand your perspective. Please help. --Doncram (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I call for any last comments to be given promptly, otherwise I plan myself to close this discussion soon with summary that the consensus is the content is to be restored. If there actually was explicit disagreement with reasons expressed that actually caused there to be doubt about what is the consensus (generally supposed to be based upon relative strength of arguments, not just number of "!votes") then perhaps I would choose to use the available service (upon request at wp:AN i think) to get an uninvolved administrator to close this. But here, given 3 participants apparently in favor of the proposal, and one participant perhaps not supporting that but seeming not to oppose it, either, it seems unnecessary/inappropriate to call for help that way. --Doncram (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I will further acknowledge that editor User:Agljones seems to be obtusely (in my opinion) resisting discussion here in this section, while indirectly partially responding to me by this edit elsewhere on this page at 20:01, 7 December 2020. In that edit they direct attention to a different webpage and discussion relating to this geographic location as viewed in Google maps. I believe they are pretty much not willing to "fully" discuss the issue of this discussion section in this discussion section, despite the fact that they have commented in this discussion section which would seem to indicate acceptance of this discussion section, perhaps in order to reserve right to dispute the result of discussion here. About that specific geographic location, which points to an exact spot near to, but not exactly focussed upon Kate's Cottage, I believe they are speculating it was officially the exact location of, say, an animal enclosure, despite no evidence of an animal enclosure ever existing there (it is in a field near Kate's Cottage, instead). And I believe their reasoning is that because some source gave those coordinates as the location of Kate's Cottage, that means that all previous information about Kate's Cottage is invalid. However, I also believe that Agljones simply has little experience with reliability of coordinates information, and is mistaken in thinking that old/historical attempts to provide exact coordinates for a place like Kate's Cottage would have to agree with modern GIS coordinates. I and many many many other editors of articles about historic sites are familiar with coordinates issues as reflected by advice for editors for U.S. National Register of Historic Places sites located at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Style_guide#Coordinates. It is a commonplace among historic sites editors (although I rather expect Agljones does not know anything about this) that coordinates given historically as the location for a place are often "wrong". Even coordinates which have very carefully been measured by a conscientious government agent, based on where the place shows on the very best available topographic maps, turn out to be "wrong" later, because the topographic maps turn out to be "wrong" relative to modern exact systems of mapping (such as provided by Google maps). For example, in the U.S. there was a revision of all mapping coordinates originally measured by the North American Datum of 1927 which later needed to be restated in terms of the World Geodetic System 84 which applies to United States and most of the world. The difference within the U.S. ranges up to 100 yards or more, depending on location in the U.S. I believe that Agljones perceives a discrepancy between the coordinates at one time asserted to be the location of Kate's Cottage, vs. its apparent "correct" coordinates in modern GIS systems, and then erroneously concludes that textual reports about Kate's Cottage in the past are invalid because they must be about a different, hypothetical, no-longer-extant building at the (wrong) coordinates. IMO, of course the textual info about Kate's Cottage is in fact about Kate's Cottage.

Next steps are, IMO, to close this discussion because there is no disagreement here, and further to carry over the results from here to Kate's Cottage, Isle of Man and its Talk page. Sure, both User:MB and User:Agljones would seem to have somewhat preferred for this discussion to have occurred at Talk:Kate's Cottage, Isle of Man instead, but they both are fully aware of this discussion here and have participated here, and it simply is not "wrong" to have discussion here. In this edit there, I give notice to all editors there (really just Agljones and myself) that this discussion is happening here. Everyone possibly interested has been advised that if there is a consensus here, it will apply to coverage about Kate's Cottage both in this list-article and in its separate article. I personally think it is better for the discussion to happen here, because it has higher viewership and is where the issue actually arose from Agljones' edit removing simple, factual text here. --Doncram (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I will acknowledge there has been this further statement elsewhere by Agljones, about which I have two things to say. One, it is not here in this discussion. Two, I myself am unwilling to try to restate some part of it into any argument against the consensus of this discussion, because a) I personally think there is no merit in whatever argument could potentially be contrived out of the incoherent complaints and non-factual assertions there, and b) I don't want to encourage Agljones to think they can legitimately communicate in a discussion by not participating in the discussion, or to think they can "win" a dispute somehow by their being cute or clever or whatever they might think they are being by not stating clear and direct arguments ... I suspect they think that they have "correct" or "winning" arguments and evidence that they are waiting to articulate at some later date, while I think they do not have any legitimate argument or supporting evidence that would stand up to review if it were actually directly stated.

Anyhow, now, in my opinion, this discussion is closed... the consensus is to return the simple text. Which has not actually been disputed. --Doncram (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In this edit with edit summary "There is no evidence of building identified as No 117 (Kates Cottage) being built or occupied during the period 1800-1899", Agljones removed the true, undisputed simple text. Agljones has stated elsewhere on this page or on Talk:Kate's Cottage that it was built in the early 19th century. I find the removal after discussion went completely the opposite way to be disingenuous, obtuse, etc.. --Doncram (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

As I've stated elsewhere, Agljones introduced the date of 1870 (build) in this change, 29 March 2015 and 11 minutes later moved the pagename to manipulate search engines (admitted) without any need for disambiguation: "Agljones moved page Kate's Cottage to Kate's Cottage, Isle of Man: Better description of page (also for Google search)". As of this revision (permalink) dated 15 June 2019 (before Agljones' major revision on 18 July 2020), the prose still carried Agljones' editorial comment of "The typical nineteenth century small stone-walled cottage..." which can be seen in the initial upload dated 4 September 2008.

Doncram the BBC commentator who allegedly was part of the Tate's/Kate's name corruption sequence is quoted elsewhere as "Mr H. Cowin" in 1939; this cannot be included into the main article as the source is a copyvio link.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)