User talk:Kilnburn/June 2008

your Kirkcaldy revamp

Hi K, just had a quick scan through your substantial revamp of Kirkcaldy. I have to confess I was rather apprehensive as to what I'd find after all the previous issues we discussed about your editing etc. in the past but I have to tell you I'm quite impressed at the results so far. You've evidently put some effort into your researches and improving your style of editing. I'll stress that I've only had a very quick look but the initial impression is positive.

If I can offer some advice, although I know you are still working on the article, it could do with a little copyediting in some instances for style, clarity and the occasional wrong use of words but I will say in this respect your work has improved markedly. I've still not much time for Wikipedia at the moment but I'll take a crack if I get a chance. Otherwise you could ask for some copyediting at Wikipedia talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board, or if you like I'll flag it there with an appropriate spiel.

Another issue we discussed in the past was appropriate quotation from cited texts and it looks like there is now a much expanded list of more reliable, published sources in the references, which is a good sign. I have some of these publications but not others, but for those I have I'll cross check your reference to them if I get a chance or again you/I could flag it at the noticeboard for a double check.

Good work. All the best, Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkcaldy revamp

Hello there, I noticed the Kirkcaldy revamp too. I just thought I'd best give you a nudge about WP:UKTOWNS - the style and content guide on writing about settlements in Scotland and the UK. It has been adopted for most of the Scottish cities, and in Scotland's only geography-class FA, Neilston. I hope that helps, --Jza84 | Talk 12:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkcaldy Article Changes 19 June 2008

Kilburn why did you revert the changes I made to the artcle? The section at the top of the page invites contributions.

Your recent additions are excellent and I was only trying to improve some of the grammer and wording of the new sections. I never made any significant changes and cant understand why you have reverted them?

195.27.12.180 (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

right, let's get this straight now. i have been working very hard on this (i'm serious now) i will allow you to edit, as long as you respect my work and add a reference or two, that is all i'm asking of you. if you didn't know where to get a reference, then you should have come to me and i would have submitted them for you. anyway, i was planning to revise these areas, so they probably would have erased. i feel i have been a bit let down by your contribution. Kilnburn (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kilburn there's no need to get angry about it. We are grown ups after all.

I did source my change. You can check. I used a reference from the new Kirkcaldy & Mid Fife Local Plan which was recently approved at Planning Committee. You may wish to read it.

In what way has one not respected your work? I made minor grammer and wording changes. The article essentially read the same. You can't monopolise the article for yourself. Others may wish to contribute positively to your good work.

195.27.12.180 (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kilnburn. We previously had some differences of opinion and you sometimes got upset with me in the past. However I'd like to think we have a good level of trust now and our previous experience of differences may mean my thoughts about the conversation above could be of use to you.

Firstly, please assume the good faith of other editors unless it's very clear otherwise. In this case I can see why you may have had doubts as, from the talk page of User:195.27.12.180, they appear to have committed some vandalism in the past. It is possible that, as this is an unregistered user, different people are responsible for the edits (in which case 195.27.12.180, if you are reading this, this is a very good incentive for you to register as a user). Whatever the character of this user's previous edits, their Kirkcaldy edits appeared to be of constructive intent (I'm not passing judgement on whose version is better by the way). On that basis, even if you feel it is necessary to revert their edits you ought to give a clear explanation as to your reason in the edit summary. To undo changes without an edit summary is a direct indication that you assume vandalism.

Your response above is surprisingly defensive, possessive and combative ("right, let's get this straight now"), particularly after this user has praised your editing (evidently already "respect(ing your) work" as you later demand). Also it is not for you or I or any other user to "allow (another user) to edit". As we discussed a couple of days ago, there is some copyediting necessary in the article in regard to aspects such as spelling, grammar, turn of phrase. You ought to be happy that others are willing to help you with this and not assume it is an attack.

The tactic of putting a {{pp-semi-protected}} tag to stop this unregistered user seems even more harsh without much better justification. It could be seen as an underhand tactic to win an edit war. (Aside from that I thought this was only supposed to be used by administrators and I'm surprised ordinary users can do this.) I suggest you remove it.

Please don't let an unfounded fear of other users get in the way of your otherwise much improved work. All the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protection

Hi! I noticed that earlier today you placed the {{pp-semi-protected}} tag on the article Kirkcaldy. I just want to point out our Page Protection Policy, and just say briefly that only administrators can actually protect the page from being edited. Yes, anyone can add the tags, but this has no effect on the editing ability of others. I have removed the tag, as I feel the page does not meet the protection policy at this time. If you want the article to be protected, feel free to ask an adminstrator on the requests for page protection page, and an available administrator will review your request. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 22:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defoe/Lang Toun

As per [1]: Quoting Defoe saying the town was “one street, one mile long” is a far cry from showing his responsibility for the nickname "Lang Toun". Please cite this. ...and don't remove the tag until you have done so please. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. To elaborate a little, the cited publications may refer in the same section to the nickname "Lang Toun" and also to Defoe referring to the town as being long, but unless they directly and specifically attribute the coining of the nickname to him, to say he is responsible for the nickname is your own interpretation and thus should not go into Wikipedia. (At the very least, being English I don't imagine he spoke Scots, so I'm doubtful he would have used the very term "Lang Toun".) So, if there is no attribution of the nickname to him, just mention that the nickname is the Lang Toun, stating that Defoe famously noted the town being “one street, one mile long” - but no further interpretation of your own. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:High St (East End), Kirkcaldy.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:High St (East End), Kirkcaldy.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Kirk Esplanade.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Kirk Esplanade.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]