User talk:Kilnburn/Mid to late March 2008

Misquoting citations, unexplained deletions

Hi Kilnburn, thanks for the info about the Balwearie High web site.

In regard to some recent edits of yours, although you have made improvements in giving citations, I'm concerned that the edits very often misrepresent and misquote the citations. I'm guessing that sometimes this may be due to a misunderstanding of the cited text but the pattern has become so consistent that I'm wondering if tend to write something which you believe to be true then search for citations to back up your opinion, using whatever you find whether it really supports the edit or not. If this is the case I'm sure it is not with malicious intent but you must not do this. Better to find sources first and then make edits on the basis of their content. If it doesn't say it in the source, you should not put it in the article. If you haven't already, read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources and you will find them useful.

The pattern in regard to misquotes has made me worry about many of the longer standing citations in the text as I believe many of them are attributable to you and I'm now wondering how accurately these parts of the article reflect their citations.

Also you should not blank text without a good reason and if you do so you should certainly give an edit summary, detailing clearly why you have done so.

Lastly, I notice that you were puzzled as to the disappearance of some photos you had uploaded. Although I have added some photos myself, this is an aspect of editing I'm less au fait with. Thus I don't have a quick answer without doing a bit of revision, but I think it is probably down to the way you are attributing the photo, meaning it can't be used under Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia:Image use policy should be of help to you. If that doesn't provide the answer, there is also a Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk. All the best, Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I notice you have removed, for the second time, the word probably in the phrase "The retail park is probably the most successful in Fife". The text you cited clearly says "in Kirkcaldy the Retail Park at Chapel is probably the strongest performing Retail Park in Fife". It does not say that it is the strongest performing. To remove the word probably misrepresents the citation. I put the word back in this morning, clearly explaining in an edit summary: "rv: the citation clearly says "probably" ("Chapel is probably the strongest performing Retail Park in Fife")". To remove the word again, as you have done, now appears to be a deliberate attempt to push a POV by deliberately misquoting a citation. You gave no edit summary to explain your action and no new citation which does actually say that it is the strongest performing. Please give an explanation, a citation which backs up your assertion or replace the word probably in the sentence. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

yep. oh dear! the reason i removed the word "probably" is i do not agree with the source material because if you go to the retail park on a regular basis, the stretch of road into the place and running all the way done to Sainsbury's is gridlock on both sides; most of the car park spaces along the seven units on the left are taken and the Sainsbury's petrol station is dealing with more traffic meaning you often have to wait for a space, as it the only petrol station in the vicinity (Kirkcaldy West area) since they decided to shut the Esso on Chapel Level. you know, the source did state it was strongest performing, but i don't believe it was "probably" the strongest performing from the view of Fife Council which i think is very unfair to suggest. the thing is, i don't want to use this word but i don't know what to replace it with. Kilnburn (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok Kilnburn, that's all very well but whether or not you personally think this, it is just not relevant in Wikipedia if you can't back it up. If I were to agree with you, that cuts no ice either. We could discuss our personal experience of how busy various retail parks in Fife appear to be but our opinions on the matter have no place in the article. This is very important and we've discussed this kind of thing endlessly.

To state that it is definitively the most successful retail park without anything to back it up constitutes original research, which has no place here. This is very, very important - please understand this. The detailed report you cite thinks it is probably the strongest performing, but is unable to state the fact definitively. To state in your edit that it does state this definitively is not true and it would not be honest to leave it there. You must address this. As I said before, your choices are actually very simple: to find a reliable citation which backs up your assertion or replace the word probably in the sentence. To leave it as it is not an option.

As mentioned, this kind of thing is a persistent feature of many of your edits and I'm finding it very frustrating and frankly disheartening to have to check them out to see if you've allowed your enthusiam for a personal point of view to misrepresent another citation. Please tailor your edits to the verifiable facts you uncover, rather than write your personal opinions first then try to to back them up by bending citations which actually say something different. Please finally take this on board. You've made some noticeable improvements in your editing so please don't spoil it by continuing this trait. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I've tagged the section in the mean time. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

well since i was the one who added the sentence and reference, i will remove it because it is frankly causing too much bother for you and me too. Kilnburn (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Your latest Kirkcaldy edit summary says that you "have deleted a sentence and reference that was causing a bit of bother". Firstly, the reference was actually a useful one and it was not causing any bother. The bother was due to your misquotation. I actually think the reference is quite a useful one and the statement that Chapel is "probably the strongest performing Retail Park in Fife" is notable. Removing the sentence and reference is not necessary. What needs to be addressed is the misquotation, which can be done by re-inserting the word probably. Lastly, whether by accident or not and contrary to the assertion in your edit summary, you have actually left the sentence in question entirely untouched. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

oh, all in one piece too. now it has all been explained to me, it's what's best for the article that counts at the end of the day. maybe i should keep my personal opinions to myself so i don't get into bother again with someone else. thank you and glad to find my info concerning the troubled Balwearie High School website so useful. Kilnburn (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, it is what's best for the article that counts. You've hit the nail on the head; we should all keep our personal opinions out of articles to maintain a neutral point of view. It's fine to express them in discussion in talk pages but only verifiable cited material should be in the articles. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Kirkcaldy

I quite liked that picture; I thought the contrast between the very white and modern Adam Smith building, St. Brycedale, and the terraced houses gave a nice impression of old and new. You're right, though, the pictures it's been replaced with are lots better. Well done for improving the article - looks like a lot of good work; keep it up! :) I'll take a look back in a while when I've got some free time on my hands, and see if there's anything more I can add; I've been far too busy of late to be able to spend any time on wikipedia. Cheers! njan (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

thank you. that's very much appreciated. well thanks to the bulk that i submitted, Kirkcaldy now has more photos than neighbouring Glenrothes.

talking about pictures, there is this article i did recently Victoria Hospital (Kirkcaldy) if you care to look when you have the time, which i'm going to take/submit photos of the main entrance, A&E and main road outside the hospital, plus one of the Whyteman's Brae, all to be done on my own. but i've had a thought that you if you're able, then you'd be welcome to take these photos for my article, i could have easily done them myself, but i have contributed far far far too much and it's not fair not giving others a chance to showcase their work. anyway, i'll leave this option open to you or anyone else you know might have an interest for this. Kilnburn (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Take away, if it's convenient. I'm in no hurry to make a visit to the hospital any time soon. ;) The Kirkcaldy article is getting a little photo-heavy, though - although Victoria Hospital (Kirkcaldy) could certainly take a couple of extra pictures.. well done for the good work! See above for the selected highlights of some subediting I just did.. Incidentally, no biggie, but in future, if you could reply on User_talk:Njan, that'd be handy - I'm more likely to see your comments that way, given my current tentative wikipedic status. :) njan (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the picture caption - feel free to fix my edits if you notice they're broken, though; I wear big stompy boots, you're certainly not going to tread on my toes. :) njan (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Kirkcaldy Town Centre Edits

In what way was this being rude? You keep adding shop names when you have been told on a number of occassions that they have no place on a factual website like wikipedia, yet you continue to add them. All you need to say is "well-known" retailers, as I said it never even happened so why is it relevant to even mention them? Kirkcaldy has a HMV now anyhow and we can see what shops were interested from the news article reference.

I understand you are only trying to help, but at the same time if you can't take some constructive criticism, without taking offence, then you shouldnt't be editing the Kirkcaldy page.

195.27.12.180 (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

well,195.27...... why is this being allowed to happen then, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_Shopping_Centre; and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenock#Trade_and_commerce hmmmm........

yes, shops should be kept to be a minimum and i believe if they must be mentioned, they should be backed by sources where possible, particularly if they have importance in the town. of course, i know HMV now exists, but they obviously were still interested in the town even with the collapse of the original Waterfront plan.

i'm fine with constructive criticism,but i do have slight asperger's syndrome which does it make it hard sometimes for me to appreciate this, hence i was trying to be as understanding as i could.

after all, it's all for the best of the appearance of the article, anyway and you or nor i can argue with that. agreed. Kilnburn (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DSCN1520.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:DSCN1520.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. Nilfanion (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

i'll get that sorted out. thanks for the acknowledgment. Kilnburn (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:The Mercat. Kirkcaldy.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:The Mercat. 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

i would like you to delete one of my pictures entitled Image:The Mercat. Kirkcaldy.JPG and to delete Image:DSCN1520.JPG completely, since i have no control over this.

sadly, my picture has been blown out of preportion when i tried to insert it into The Mercat Shopping Centre article and would like to get it down to a normal size, but don't know how to do this? i have a fear it may be deleted. where do i go to resolve this on the help pages. seen below:

Kilnburn (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:The Mercat Kirkcaldy.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:The Mercat 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

i've correctly this. Kilnburn (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion, population wealth, Glenrothes & Kirkcaldy

Thought this might interest you.

Its a note Fife Council have prepared on the Labour Market in Fife (see link below).

[1]

It shows where the areas with the highest number of benefit claiments are, and therefore where the wealthy and poorer parts of Fife are.

It shows you were right about the where the areas of wealth in Kirkcaldy are.

Read for yourself and you can make up your own mind about which town has the wealthier population.

195.27.12.180 (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

well, this is really fascinating actually. thank you very much for your gesture Kilnburn (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:The Forge Shopping Centre logo.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:The Forge Shopping Centre logo.gif. 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)