Talk:Pitcairngreen

Re-instigation of Park Description Sentence
Dear Nev1 and anyone it may concern,

I have undone the edit removing the park description sentence from the Amenities section. This is because I believe your claim that it is utter trivia to be highly subjective. While I can appreciate that you may not interested park facilities the information you removed is of interest and indeed importance to anyone researching Public Park facilities and their resourcing. Therefore, I and I am sure others interested in this field would be grateful if you could refrain form deleting the information.

Many thanks for your consideration in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

EditMonkey  --EditMonkey (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia, whether a park has benches or not is not appropriate content and referencing yourself (ie: " ") is not acceptable. Please take a look at WP:V. It is also troubling that the article has a striking resemblance to this page with only superficial changes. Nev1 (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

My Dear Nev1,

It is from the bottom of my hart that I must thank you for your comments. No expression of gratitude could quite describe how much appreciate them. The tone you employed is most eloquent and really warmed my sole. Reading your thoughtful words has lit up what was an intolerably dull day. It was as if Phoebus Apollo- god of the sun- had ridden his chariot of lustrous gold across the overcast sky. His unstoppable charge vanquishing the atmosphere of all stratus, currulus, cirrus, and numbus. Oh give me more of your wondrous verbal playfulness. I'm now overcome with the joy brought forth by your impressive lexicon and literary style.

Anyway in answer to you excellent and well placed queries. To start with I must point out that the article does not mention park benches. There are in fact no park benches on the green. The fact someone as wise as yourself can make such an erroneous statement only stands to emphasizes the importance of including information about park facilities in on Wikipedia pages, particularly this one. As you have properly guessed I am retentively new to Wikipedia hence the problematic referencing of myself. In my defence I must point out that it was perfectly expectable encouraged and indeed required to reference my own observations in my Masters Dissertation at the University of Manchester - incidentally this was a piece of work  I achieved distinction in. Nevertheless, I have changed the reference to Google street view to hopefully negate some of you concerns. Finally, regarding you charge of the   content having a striking resemblance to this page. I would retort by drawing you attention to this statement, found near the top of the paraphrasing page you most kindly highlighted to me, that reads and I quote "close paraphrasing is not a problem as long as the source is properly acknowledged". I would therefore assert that the article does not breach the rules as the source is referenced and is paraphrased  not plagiarised. However, if you are sill uncomfortable with it I would be happy to rewrite it in the fullness of time when my busy seclude permits.

Thankyou once again for your helpful and not at all sarcastic feedback.

I look forward to hearing your reply.

Yours in awe, gratefulness and humility.

EditMonkey --EditMonkey (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Your personal observations are not suitable for Wikipedia because who is to say you are reliable. Am I supposed to be impressed that you have a Masters? Judging by your grammar, spelling, and comprehension skills I am somewhat sceptical. Nev1 (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to decode some parts of your message. Could you tell me if a "seclude" is similar to a "schedule"? Nev1 (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Nev1,

I happen to be Dyslexic and take great offence to you comments on my spelling ect. It is just another example of the bigoted hatred and intolerance exhibited by lexical community against the dyslexic. The creation pedantic rules are just another way of intolerant individuals such as yourself stopping dyslexic people from expressing themselves and creating barriers to entry to the on-line community. As I have mentioned I have replaced the reference. However, I would point out that there is no difference between referencing a observation of a visual source or and referencing an observation text based source. the primacy of text over the visual is just another example of anti-dyslexic bias. Nevertheless who anyone on Wikipedia can be said to be any more or less  reliable that anyone else. Furthermore, I think that it is your comprehension skills that are lacking if you can't tell from the context that seclude is schedule - the refusal of the Lexicals to read using context and phonetics and insistence  on the adherence to illogical grammatical and spelling rules is just another form of anti-dyslexicism.

Best

Editmonkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditMonkey (talk • contribs) 21:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Dyslexia wouldn't stop you from understanding that whether a park has a bench, a picnic table, one swing set or two, or none of the above is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Or that copying and pasting as you did here is an infringement of copyright. And if you take a closer look at WP:Close paraphrasing you'll see that immediately before it says "close paraphrasing is not a problem as long as the source is properly acknowledged" it states quite clearly that "If the other source is public domain or compatibly licensed with Wikipedia". The source your article mirrored is not in the public domain. Nev1 (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nev1,

I never said Dyslexia had anything to do my understanding in me it effects the physicalities of reading and writhing. Again your comments are offensive and tantamount to a personal attack.

I do not see why the information is inappropriately for inclusion in this encyclopaedia considering some of the other information on here. Who are you, I or anyone else to decide what trivia is. When I look up these pages that is the type of information I want. Maybe you don't want that information but some of us do and now that you have got it removed you have damaged it's usefulness to others. In regards to the sourcing of the articles the article is now completely in my own words to an extent that would be expectable to for academic submission and the original source is referenced. Therefore, I really do not see what the problem is. However, you have decided to unjustly report me for nothing and have the article blacked for not supposedly adhering to Wikipedia's rules. Rules that are inherently anti-dyslexic.

Kindest regards

EditMonkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditMonkey (talk • contribs) 22:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed a blatant copyright violation from the Stanley, Perthshire article. I would expect someone who claims to produce work of an academic standard to understand why plagiarism and copyright violations are not accepted here or anywhere else. Asking that you not do that is not anti-dyslexic and whinging that the rules aren't fair doesn't change the fact you copied and pasted from a copyrighted source. One definition of trivia is given as "unimportant matters"; you can't seriously believe that the number of swings a park has is important. There are indeed other articles full of trivial rubbish, but those need to be pruned rather than used as justification for the proliferation of more junk. Nev1 (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I'm confused, since when did Dyslexia preclude the use of a spellchecker? Parrot of Doom 23:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Parrot of Doom (Nice name by the way) I do use a spell check, however, they only pick up words that are spelt incorrectly. They do not pick up misspelling that are the same as correct words if you see what I mean. As part of my disability means I read what I meant to right rather that what is actually there this can produce errors. also I have tendency to pick to wrong word from the spell-check suggestions as well.

Best

EditMonkey

Hi Nev1,

I not arguing about the original Stanley, Perthshire it did present significant copyright issues. It was in fact a work in progress and I had every intention of rewriting it when I got time. (I am now aware that I should of completely written it before I added it to the page, but it was one of my first edits). However, as soon as I was made aware that it was problematic I rewrote the article to negate these issues. Therefore the argument I am trying to make is that rewritten article I made does not breach copyright as it is in my own words and fully referenced. Nevertheless you have got you friend to remove it which I feel was the wrong decision.

Now on to trivia. Firstly Thank you for the definition. It in fact adds weigh to my original assertion that you dubbing of the information as trivia is highly subjective. What may seem unimportant to you can be of the up most importance some one else one man's trivia another's important fact in the same way as one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. In addition I notice that you are involved it the greater Manchester project well to me the population and details of Fallowfeild seem like trivia but I posses the empathy skills to to realise that they are not trivia to people interesting the subject and I would not delete any of them out of hand especially with the crude edit summery utter trivia. The inclusion information about park facilities in Perthshire is important and not trivia to me and others in my field of research, yet, you just deleted because you decided it was trivia.

best

EditMonkey --EditMonkey (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The article history quite clearly shows that no one has edited the Stanley, Perthshire article since you rewrote it. If you insist on filling articles with useless crap such as whether parks have swings you are likely to find that a lot of people find that kind of information trivial. Nev1 (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nav1,

OK I admit there has been some confusion here regarding Stanley-sorry. This arose because shortly before I posted the last message here I was sent a 2nd warning (well after I had corrected Stanley) from mathsci about copyright  ect. Therefore I thought it had been deleted again. Anyway just to clarify does the new Stanley Perthshire article meet criteria set out before or do you need me to edit it again?

I would also like to point out that I'm not insisting filling articles with quantitative data pertaining to allocation public recreational activity resources in Parks in Perthshire villages. In fact I have not re-instigated the data in the Pitcairngreen article after the second deletion, even though I feel it inclusion is right, proper and indeed would be and important addition to the sum of human knowledge. Furthermore, I have also refrained from adding addition useful information such the fact that Pitcairngreen also has a canine waste disposal receptacle. I have also not added the fact that nearby Luncarty park is fitted with gravity assisted vertical motioning inducing equipment as well as a metal and wood based human-made structure featuring primate inspired elevation apparatus.

It is a dreadful shame that the miss use of power by a few can deny the many access to knowledge. Final although I am not insisting on adding said information, I am strongly of the opinion that your accusations of triviality are fundamental wrong and I do not accept them.

Thank you for reading this and I look forward to you reply.

Yours sincerely

EditMonkey EditMonkey (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC) --EditMonkey (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So far you have had no sourced material to add to this article. Please read WP:RS. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you comment. I have now read the WP:RS and I sorry but I really think you are mistaken. I have referenced/sourced this article please see the ref list at the bottom. The source I used is the website The Editors of The Gazetteer for Scotland. this organisation is supported by  The Royal Scottish Geographical Society and the School of GeoSciences at University of Edinburgh. I would therefore suggest that is a reliable souse. It is a secondary source form an academically recognised organisation so what is the problem.

If it is The Ref to the Picaingreen inn web site it just there to support the fact that it accentually exists as I am now aware that fact that I observe it every day is not enough- maybe it is like Schrödinger's cat it is only alive/there if someone is looking at it - lol.

Best

EditmonkeyEditMonkey (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Photo?
Does anyone Have a photo of the village and/or the Inn? Would make the page look a bit better if we could add one.--ClungeLover69 (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)