User talk:ArchaicW

1395: 649: 469: 254: 1083:

that's not to say there isn't space for that kind of approach, but in some ways it is harder to take a different approach with an article that hasn't yet found its feet in terms of notability. I wonder if it might be worth posting a copy on the talk page for reference, and then removing the commentary. You could split it into two parts, one for sources already used in the article and one to highlight further reading. That's a fairly common approach.

1427: 873: 1148:

that work focus – and there would be not much point in doing that until the article is up there anyway. Glad you agree (point 3) about not turning it into a list. Point 4, an article on the restoration debate would I think be a new topic which I would not consider myself to be knowledgeable enough to write. On his point 5, adding a section to the main ‘Scottish Castles’ page, absolutely, but again not till the article is there.

167: 1514: 1079:" (emphasis mine). It's not an exact science, but I think it's bits like the part in bold which are shifting the perception about the draft being an essay. The sentence has already summarised the information, and gives a reference so we might not need the last bit. It is very much stylistic because as a piece of writing it not only works, but I like that it gives prominence to the source of information. 546: 1328: 1185: 722: 685: 578: 506: 414: 376: 1036:

said that he thought the draft ‘read too much like an essay’. I edited out anything that to me sounded like an ‘essay’, asked him to have another look and at that point (most unfairly I thought) he posted the comment on the draft that he was declining to review the draft but still thought that it read too much like an essay!

1116:

That’s a very interesting point you make about the ‘Sources & further reading’. I never thought of it like that, but it seemed to me to be a good idea to tell people what they might expect if thinking to consult a book or reference? In fact I wrote the article on Fonthill Splendens and followed a

1047:

But this draft article could not be further away from that. It’s about a UK subject and follows on from the considerable Scottish Castles material that is already in place. I have absolutely no vested interest in the field – I certainly don't own a Scottish castle, nor do I know anyone that does. And

1035:

First of all I contacted Theroadislong, with whom I have had several dealings over the last few years. At first, he indicated that he thought the subject was appropriate for Knowledge, so I went ahead and added all the refs etc. But when I asked him to take another look, he’d changed his position and

1015:

Hi ArchaicW, an editor suggested that I might be interested in a draft you've been working on. Restoration is an often overlooked subject, so it's encouraging to see someone addressing it. I'll take a closer look at the article over the next few days and see if we can work the article into. There are

773:

Hi Lotje Yes, I think that is an aerial view of Stirling Castle. However, I would be reluctant to add that to the Draft, as really the Stirling Castle Great Hall restoration was a totally different thing from the type of small scale tower house restorations that the article describes. The Great Hall

1557:

1) Why on earth did you go to the bother of looking for, far less raising, this matter of quite frankly monumental unimportance? Don't tell me, some ‘bot’ auto trawls Knowledge for solecisms (see point (2) below). Having looked at your Talk page, would it not be better for you to focus your further

1151:

If you can see other things you feel should be changed I’ll watch out for them – but I really feel that there is not much wrong now with the draft as it now stands? Problem is getting another reviewer to accept it, Asilvering stating that he will not revisit articles that he has turned down. If you

1082:

One thing that stands out is the 'Sources & further reading' section is essentially an annotated bibliography. That is a useful resource, but I can't remember seeing that on any other Knowledge article. That slightly unusual nature may count against the article when editors are reviewing it. And

1074:

The range of sources, in my opinion, make it clear that the topic itself is notable. I do think the style of writing is become a more minor issue as a result of recent edits. I wonder if it might be a case of removing a little bit of detail here and there, for example "into the 2000s fewer and fewer

1031:

Dear Richard Thank you very much for getting in touch with me and thank you for taking an interest in this draft article. Trying to get this article published has been quite frankly the most frustrating business imaginable for me. I first thought well over a year ago that this was a relevant topic

1147:

Re Asilvering’s suggestions, I agreed to his points 1 and 5, but believed I put forward sensible arguments as to why 2, 3 and 4 really weren't appropriate/necessary for the article. I think expanding sections on individual restorations (point 2) is a sound idea, but the ‘restoration’ article gives

1108:

Thank you very much for having a look at the draft article, and obviously very thoroughly. From what I have read of your comments – and, please, I am not trying to put words in your mouth – you seem to be saying that the draft is broadly more or less OK! It can do with a bit of tidying up here and

1051:

Lastly, I just don't believe that there is anything of the ‘essay’ feel left. I think it reads in a straightforward manner. It tells you what the article is about, it describes the numerous castles that have been restored, it describes a typical project, gives other examples to follow up and lastly

347:

and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. I am moving this to draft space to allow you some more time to work on it because the sources pose a real problem. there looks like some COI problems as 1 of the sources, a blog links

1561:

and 2) What matters more? Adding new, useful material to Knowledge or trying to follow the mountains of bureaucratic rubbish that Knowledge has spawning in recent years? It’s unbelievable and 90% of it could be junked tomorrow. With its maturity, Knowledge seems to have attracted a whole load of

1289:

Thank you for carrying out several edits. On the bit about finds made during the building work I have added an example, but not removed your 'clarification needed' note - perhaps you could have a look at it and see what you think? Haven't heard anything further from Richard, so I don't know if he

1252:

Apologies, my use of 'expert' and 'OK' perhaps a little casual - perhaps we could change that to 'very knowledgeable' about castles, as can be seen from his User Page. I said he seemed to find the draft Ok, since as you will see from his long comment above I can't myself see that he had any really

1112:

Now, I’m sure it’s not written quite as you might have done, or anybody else for that matter, but I think that's not the key issue? Does the draft cover the ground, does the subject have ‘notability’ and is it written in the manner appropriate for an encyclopedia? I think only the last point might

218:

and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion

1086:

The suggestion to turn it into a list is viable, but I think this should remain as an article, and perhaps there's space for a standalone list (eventually, I wouldn't do it now!). Typically a list would only have a few paragraphs of explanation of the topic, and there's plenty to be said here. Of

886:

1. Reduce the amount of "talking to the reader". I think this is what the previous reviewer might mean by "feels like an essay". 2. Write about individual castle restorations, on their own articles. 3. Convert this article to "List of restored castles in Scotland" or similar, cutting most of the

126:

Very disappointed that this short article is again thretened with deletion, I must say I'm puzzled. 'Largoplazo' initially threatened to delete it, I strongly contested this and he moved to 'Serious Issues'. Now 'Jmertel123' is not happy! I'm a bit puzzled again, as the point he makes seems to be

897:

think the topic in general ("restoration of castles in Scotland" or something) is notable - there are at least two entire books on it in the bibliography here. But I have the strong sense that this would be draftified or sent to AfD if you or an AfC reviewer moved it to mainspace in its current

1039:

Then Asilvering came along and in absolute fairness must have spent quite a bit of time going over the draft. He thought that there was a place for the article as well, but still came up with this essay business! He made I think five suggestions, the first of which was to remove anything that

1215:

In the meantime, as you would see above, a 'castles' expert and experienced Wikipedian, Richard Nevell, has gone through the article and while, as I have said above I don't want to put words into his mouth, he with his expert knowledge of the subject seems to think that the article is

806:

Definitely not!!!! Lovely picture, like the welly boots - but not for castle restorations! Have you been to Stirling Castle? Second best castle in Scotland after Edinburgh Castle, but actually more interesting and complete from the period. Did a lot of survey work there once. Ross

1090:

I've made a handful of changes so far and recommend you have a look to make sure you're happy with them and that I haven't inadvertently changed the meaning of something or removing an important point you wanted to make. I'll keep making edits to the draft over the next week or so.

1143:

Sources & further reading - Just looked through that list and actually every one is already a ref! Asilvering never mentioned this at all and I just assumed that it would not be read by anyone as part of the actual article? But if you feel the detail should be cut down, can

1551:“Congratulations, ArchaicW, for your valuable contributions to Knowledge. Although I see you haven't put an awful lot up, you’ve originated four new articles and made a good number of very useful edits to other articles. Keep up the good work. Could I just mention . . .” 127:

quite minor - could you not just suggest whatever you think should be changed? Anyway, I am preparing a substantial rebuttal of this threat, but due to other commitments etc it will take me a few days, so I would be very grateful if you would do nothing for now Thanks

459: 1087:

Asilvering's remaining suggestions, #2 and #5 would definitely be worthwhile, but I see it as the next step after the draft becomes a full article. It is important to incorporate this information elsewhere, and it could lead readers to this page once it goes live.

280:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

1043:

I’ve heard it said that editors have got more and more picky in recent years – perhaps being bombarded with bio type articles on non-native English speaking persons and so many blatantly commercial articles which are just a plug for businesses has jaded

1059:

I’d be delighted if you could have a look at it and try to help get it published. It’s not up as a draft for review at the moment because frankly I was pig sick of it. But if you can help I will put it up for review again. Thank you very much. Ross

399: 1256:

Anyway, Richard has made several alterations which to me have strengthened the draft and have surely removed any essay feel. If there are further points that you would like to edit/add I would be grateful if you would like to do so. Many thanks

628: 935: 1234:

We don't have "experts" here in the sense that we can't verify what qualifications or experience any individual contributor has. I'm not sure where Richard said that the article was "okay" but maybe he just meant in terms of content.

1055:

It may not be the last word in Knowledge articles, but my goodness I’ve read some shockers! And I would fully expect that if the article was up there, others would add to it – which I rather naively thought was what Knowledge was all

1313: 1040:

sounded like ‘talking to the reader’, so I edited it again. His other suggestions were interesting, but I thought took the article too far away from it’s intention to describe the modern phenomenon of Scottish castle restorations.

348:

to this article which refers to this person as a notable alumni, one of the other sources is a paper written by a past director so is affiliated, another source is just a passing mention and the York civic trust is affiliated.

199:, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read 858: 563: 1271:

I think Richard says that he will carry on making improvements to the article, which means he can see some areas that need improvement. I don't think the essay "feel" has been removed but I will have another look at it.

745: 1171: 708: 671: 927: 284:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

789: 1374: 1219:

I accept that the original first draft as read by Theroadislong may have had some essay feel to it, but I truly think that has gone! But I look forward to any suggestions you would like to make. Thank you.

966: 1249:

Dear Deb Thanks for your comments. Actually, Richard Nevell is involved as he was asked by Asilvering if he would have a look at the article. Richard has now made several changes/improvements to it.

1456:. 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 155: 539: 299: 215: 192: 160: 26: 1548:

Hi, JK, thanks very much for pointing that out to me – always thought you had to put something in that box, so from now on I’ll put nothing. Mind you, such a pity your message hadn't been,

1140:

Inglis Table ref – I actually put that extra line in, as I felt it was a statement that needed specific justification! It can come out, but I think you are saying it reads OK in any case?

915: 492: 1212:

Thank you for taking the time to have a look at this draft article. If there are specific points which you feel if changed would help to get the draft accepted, please do forward them.

1472: 487: 362: 666: 1441: 1152:

are in agreement, as a ‘castles’ expert, do you know of another reviewer who might take your word for it that the draft article is now quite acceptable? Thanks very much. Ross

976:! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the 740: 703: 1001: 956: 1354: 608: 435: 1414: 887:

paragraph-format prose. 4. Write an article on the debate, possibly. (I'm not sure the sources exist for this.) 5. Consider adding a brief section on restorations to

767: 238: 900:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit

524: 357: 1203: 394: 978: 1120:

I'll look out for any suggested changes. Just wanted to send you a quick reply for now, hope to send you some further comments tomorrow. Many thanks. Ross

893:

Those are all just my suggestions about what you could do with this material, not any kind of requirement. Personally, I think the list is the way to go. I

1016:

some excellent sources in there, so good building blocks. I've not come across Janet Inglis' PhD before so I'll add that to my ever growing reading list.

774:

restoration was a massive project, organised by Historic Scotland - a real 'Civil service' project, if you know what I mean! Better to leave out! Ross

1353:. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the 243: 308: 300: 137: 1253:

significant objections? Perhaps he was a little hesitant in his comments, as Asilvering had rejected the draft and perhaps he wasn't quite sure why?

431: 130: 60:

on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

1562:

nit-pickers more interesting in producing bureaucratic rules then getting on with improving the information and quality of Articles. Best wishes

277: 884:

Sorry, I'm seeing the same thing as Theroadislong. I think this topic is worth including in Knowledge, though, so here are some suggestions:

1499: 294: 922: 1191: 1176: 908: 864: 728: 713: 691: 676: 420: 405: 1521:" has a very specific definition on Knowledge—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as 1350: 266: 223:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the 108:

on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out

343:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Knowledge's 196: 1341:

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Knowledge! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

591:

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Knowledge! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

1052:

refers in a totally neutral way to the controversy over restoration versus conservation. It's well illustrated and has good refs.

74: 1419: 1025: 156: 1334: 1319: 1010: 1495: 529: 558: 25:

to Knowledge! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as

1558:

efforts on looking for the bad or stub articles that need some work done on them? Maybe some more Scottish castles edits?

69: 992:, a friendly space on Knowledge where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 1161: 1129: 1100: 1069: 755: 1571: 1491: 1386: 1365: 1315: 879: 860: 640: 619: 565: 449: 401: 225: 942: 604: 445: 79: 1381:

Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

882:

has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Asilvering was:

635:

Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

1465: 1382: 1361: 844: 830: 816: 801: 783: 636: 615: 176: 121: 64: 38: 311:, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from 1477: 1299: 1281: 1266: 1244: 1229: 204: 150: 220: 30: 1542: 270: 1137:

Further to my note yesterday, reread your comments and I’m just responding to some specific points:

1096: 1021: 512: 497: 183: 736: 699: 662: 603:. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they 600: 520: 483: 390: 1032:

in the ‘Scottish Castles’ field, but only got round to putting it up as draft a few months ago.

84: 22: 821:

You are correct, one would probably not enter Stirling Castle with wellingtons on. Thanks :-)

1538: 1453: 382: 367: 101: 1464:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 997: 952: 353: 336: 234: 117: 105: 1517:

Hi ArchaicW! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "

8: 1526: 1522: 1092: 1017: 444:. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 290: 109: 914:

If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and

1533:

of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you.

1410: 988: 732: 695: 658: 584: 569: 516: 479: 386: 94: 48:, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type 44: 1435: 1190: