431:
speedy-deletion editors to extinguish all of those facts. May I ask: “Martin, have you ever been at the Noss Head
Lighthouse Station & Tower?” If not, then what are your credentials for deleting facts about a subject where your knowledge appears minimal and in the manner you have chosen so to do? Surely it would be more constructive to actually EDIT rather than just MASS DELETE? There appears a propensity of Wiki editors who know little or nothing about a subject to embark upon a speedy-deletion route. I stopped donating to the Knowledge Foundation because of the failure of some editors to help people of my proscribed category. Instead, a notorious tranche of editors appear to prefer the infamous “edit wars” form of approach on Knowledge. The Knowledge edit wars are horrendous and have wasted hundreds of hours of peoples’ time in a chronic “mass deletion” problem/addiction. Now we are at a phase where actual facts are being deleted for recreation or through wilful blindness. I do not have a Ph.D on how to edit Knowledge. As a stroke-survivor, I believe it is reasonable for me to ask you and editors like you for “reasonable adjustments” as per those mandated in the U.K. terms of the U.K. Equalities Act 2010? I am more than happy to work WITH you to improve Knowledge so it is accurate instead of an empty library of “stub” articles. I mentioned the not-for-profit organisation: Unique Property Bulletin Ltd” that was involved in renovating the WHOLE station as NOT to mention it could be complained at by your ilk as a “failure to disclose.” People cannot win at these feckless edit wars. Plus there are hundreds of photographs of the lighthouse buildings INCLUDING THE TOWER being renovated by the Northern Lighthouse BOARD, FROM THE FREE resource of the site owners (of the subject of this page). Unlike your assertion that the TOWER was not included during the renovation, I can provide facts that the NOSS HEAD LIGHTHOUSE TOWER WAS THE FOCUS OF THE RENOVATIONS. You infer I have a conflict of interest. There is no monetary, nor wish in that direction. Indeed I am endeavouring to disclose the source of material where I have unimpeachable knowledge of what has happened at this location in Wick, Caithness so the]at WIKIPEDIA IS ACCURATE. If people who know nothing of the subject on this page wish to just delete entire screeds instead of working with a contributors have factual knowledge and corroboration of the Knowledge page subject’s renovation, surely that information is LOST as a result of speedy-deletion scribes? The educational merit of this site is reduced and eroded. Yes? No? Instead, this disabled-contributer gets randomly deleted and NO PROTOCOL AT WIKIPEDIA IS PROPERLY ACCESSIBLE TO COMPLY WITH THE U.K. EQUALITIES ACT 2010 as a disabled-friendly method to APPEAL such speedy-deletors. Apart from the ultra vires dissonance that is likely to form part of your rejoinder, the net result is Knowledge loses eye-witness testimony and knowledge. Instead of being a trigger-happy notorious deletion-editor, perhaps some of the more enlightened editors might like to do the right thing (morally and legally) and help fellow contributors who are struggling with an overly complex “non-intuitive” system, and made worse by editor-inconsistency? If we just continue with your repeated mass deletion approach, then those very people who know what has happened at the subject/topic of a Wiki page, will become chronically alienated and discarded. That way lays the inevitable destination for Knowledge, as has happened to many other internet Leviathans. They just disappeared into oblivion. I would NOT want that for Knowledge. But some editors seem disposed to delete contributions without regard to the efforts made by disabled contributors. Thereby diminishing the educational worth of the Knowledge platform. Regards, Russ McLean.
154:
91:
73:
42:
337:
387:
I am sorry to escalate this but I do not want to get into an edit-war with the most recent editor who also runs the Unique
Property Bulletin. It seemed fairest to both of us to ask for an independent review by people who have the best interests of Lighthouse fans and Knowledge readers in mind.
430:
Knowledge frequently asks for people to add facts to improve quality (especially “stub” articles on
Knowledge). Yes? No? Yet, with respect, when those people respond and add facts… dates + verifiable HM Land Registry numbers and source information etc., there seems to be an appetite by the
383:
I would suggest reverting to the previous edit of 15th
December 2023, or creating a briefer version of the edit of 28th January 2024 which mentions the property developers' work, though I do not know if that is possible without a suitable independent reference which may be hard to find.
458:
is not the article for you to be editing. If you really want to get into editing
Knowledge then please choose a subject in which you do not have a conflict of interest, and there will be plenty of people who will gladly give constructive advice and help along the way. — Martin
376:
My concerns are about the "History" section, in particular the section that begins with the 4th sentence of the 5th paragraph "Up until the 23rd May 2017...." and which continues through the whole of the following paragraph "After the death.... statutory listed properties".
396:
380:
Most of this does not relate specifically to Noss Head
Lighthouse. It is not referenced, it is mainly about the organisation The Unique Property Bulletin, and much of it is assertion or opinion.
406:
I agree with your concerns about this paragraph which is not written neutrally in the appropriate tone for an encyclopedia, and gives undue weight to one aspect of the building's history. @
328:
285:
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
238:
356:
233:
Quality assessments by
Knowledge editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
271:
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass
392:
400:
422:
432:
407:
187:
182:
177:
172:
445:
Well, we do not ask people to add promotional material that is not actually about the subject of the article. I support the removal of your edit.
294:
449:
258:
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to
495:
490:
323:
268:, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
228:
500:
471:
440:
255:, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
262:
249:
98:
78:
299:
344:
330:
318:
305:
234:
53:
218:
352:
114:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
446:
361:
25:
436:
348:
275:
201:
59:
410:: if you have a conflict of interest, it would be better not to edit this article. — Martin
455:
370:
8:
314:
290:
17:
110:
466:
417:
197:
484:
310:
286:
153:
203:
104:
462:
413:
199:
90:
72:
454:
I'm not responding to most of that wall of text. But in short:
336:
204:
237:, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
347:
that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.
147:
102:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
482:
241:was approved and has been implemented to add a
345:Talk:Lightvessel#Requested move 5 January 2024
331:Talk:Lightvessel#Requested move 5 January 2024
212:This page has archives. Sections older than
52:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
343:There is a requested move discussion at
393:2A00:23EE:1730:1F1D:7D01:363A:2941:D623
229:Project-independent quality assessments
483:
222:when more than 4 sections are present.
41:
39:
35:
369:I have concerns about the page for
58:It is of interest to the following
13:
496:NA-importance Lighthouses articles
491:Project-Class Lighthouses articles
335:
14:
512:
216:may be automatically archived by
183:Archive 3: June 2009-October 2014
124:Knowledge:WikiProject Lighthouses
96:This page is within the scope of
501:WikiProject Lighthouses articles
152:
127:Template:WikiProject Lighthouses
89:
71:
40:
1:
306:Cleveland West Pierhead Light
300:Cleveland West Pierhead Light
118:and see a list of open tasks.
235:Knowledge:Content assessment
7:
357:17:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
324:18:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
304:I started an article about
10:
517:
472:17:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
450:01:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
441:23:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
423:08:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
401:08:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
295:13:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
178:Archive 2: 2008–March 2009
15:
84:
66:
283:|QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
263:WikiProject banner shell
250:WikiProject banner shell
188:Archive 4: October 2014-
99:WikiProject Lighthouses
340:
219:Lowercase sigmabot III
339:
308:. It's still a stub.
239:Village pump proposal
456:Noss Head Lighthouse
371:Noss Head Lighthouse
362:Noss Head Lighthouse
173:Archive 1: 2006–2007
130:Lighthouses articles
341:
329:Requested move at
54:content assessment
470:
421:
226:
225:
146:
145:
142:
141:
138:
137:
111:navigational aids
508:
460:
411:
349:Vanderwaalforces
322:
284:
280:
274:
267:
261:
254:
248:
244:
221:
205:
156:
148:
132:
131:
128:
125:
122:
108:and other water
93:
86:
85:
75:
68:
67:
45:
44:
43:
36:
28:
516:
515:
511:
510:
509:
507:
506:
505:
481:
480:
364:
334:
309:
302:
282:
278:
272:
265:
259:
252:
246:
242:
231:
217:
206:
200:
161:
129:
126:
123:
120:
119:
32:
31:
24:
20:
12:
11:
5:
514:
504:
503:
498:
493:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
452:
428:
363:
360:
333:
327:
301:
298:
230:
227:
224:
223:
211:
208:
207:
202:
198:
196:
193:
192:
191:
190:
185:
180:
175:
167:
166:
163:
162:
157:
151:
144:
143:
140:
139:
136:
135:
133:
116:the discussion
94:
82:
81:
76:
64:
63:
57:
46:
30:
29:
21:
16:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
513:
502:
499:
497:
494:
492:
489:
488:
486:
473:
468:
464:
457:
453:
451:
448:
447:Donald Albury
444:
443:
442:
438:
434:
429:
427:Hello Martin,
426:
425:
424:
419:
415:
409:
405:
404:
403:
402:
398:
394:
389:
385:
381:
378:
374:
372:
367:
359:
358:
354:
350:
346:
338:
332:
326:
325:
320:
316:
312:
307:
297:
296:
292:
288:
277:
269:
264:
256:
251:
245:parameter to
240:
236:
220:
215:
210:
209:
195:
194:
189:
186:
184:
181:
179:
176:
174:
171:
170:
169:
168:
165:
164:
160:
155:
150:
149:
134:
117:
113:
112:
107:
106:
101:
100:
95:
92:
88:
87:
83:
80:
77:
74:
70:
69:
65:
61:
55:
51:
47:
38:
37:
34:
27:
23:
22:
19:
391:Thank you.
390:
386:
382:
379:
375:
368:
365:
342:
303:
276:WPBannerMeta
270:
257:
232:
213:
158:
115:
109:
103:
97:
60:WikiProjects
50:project page
49:
33:
433:Russ McLean
408:Russ McLean
121:Lighthouses
105:lighthouses
79:Lighthouses
485:Categories
26:WT:LHOUSE
319:contribs
311:Eastmain
287:Aymatth2
159:Archives
18:Shortcut
243:|class=
214:30 days
366:Hello
281:a new
56:scale.
48:This
467:talk
463:MSGJ
437:talk
418:talk
414:MSGJ
397:talk
353:talk
315:talk
291:talk
487::
465:·
439:)
416:·
399:)
373:.
355:)
317:•
293:)
279:}}
273:{{
266:}}
260:{{
253:}}
247:{{
469:)
461:(
435:(
420:)
412:(
395:(
351:(
321:)
313:(
289:(
62::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
