Talk:Registered Buildings and Conservation Areas of the Isle of Man

Negative tagging added and removed September 2018 (and December 2018) (and November 2020) (and December 2020)
Negative tags were just added by User:Agljones and I am about to remove them. They were vaguely supported by Agljones' Talk page edit above in one of the multiple sections titled "BRD", approximately, a section which is already long and is miss-titled anyhow. From past experience I believe they will not allow for a more descriptive section title to be added. Please discuss here.

The tags added stated: I disagree completely with all of the above tag statements. There is no doubt whatsover whether we can have a list-article on Isle of Man's registered buildings, effectively split out like all other countries' corresponding lists from the world-wide list of registered buildings. In their complaints, they point out that Isle of Man's historic districts are not listed, and I happen to agree that we should also list them here or perhaps better separately. However that is not a reason to delete what's here. In their complaints they assert in effect that documents from the Isle of Man government about which are their registered buildings are not allowable. Of course they are allowable, they are very reliable evidence of what are their registered buildings, and even if they are deemed "primary" they are allowed. There is no plausible assertion that anything is not neutral or is factually inaccurate or even plausibly disputed. To User:Agljones, please round up some other editors' support for any negative tagging at all, before you add anything back. I will remove those negative tags now. --Doncram (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The neutrality of this article is disputed. (May 2018)
 * This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. (May 2018)
 * This section's factual accuracy is disputed. (May 2018)
 * The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (May 2018)

P.S. If you seriously dispute notability of the topic, you could open an AFD, which is an appropriate forum for serious discussion of notability. However, spurious AFD nominations are not appreciated, so you would have to do better in coming with arguments in support of deletion, and I cannot imagine any. I suggest you drop this quest. But if you wish to proceed, go ahead with an AFD and you will get solid feedback from other editors. --Doncram (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Multiple negative tags have been added by Agljones and removed by me a few times now, including just now. I think these have been the same tags each time.  Agljones, I have asked for you to get consensus for negative tagging, although it is doubtful anyone else is watching here and wants to join in.  So you should drop it.  About the overall notability of the topic and validity of this list-article, you are free to use the AFD process, which you know how to do, and which will attract numerous outside/uninvolved editors.  However I expect that others would regard an AFD as frivolous and will nearly all vote "Keep, obviously".  If you really want to check if that is what others think, go ahead.  However if you merely keep restoring negative tags without consensus, in fact without any support at all from anyone else, I will be inclined to request for you to be topic-banned from this article.  This is not a legal threat or anything, this is me telling you that I think this is beginning to get tiresome and it is what I am inclined to do. --Doncram (talk) 03:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm watching.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Same thing again, now in November 2020. Negative tags ( 2 x "multiple issues", 1 x "notability", 1 x "single source", 1 x "factual accuracy" ) added, without any supporting reasoning here on Talk page, in this diff, with edit summary which mentions me personally and mentions "vandalism" so seems to be accusing me of vandalism, I think.  Tagging is unsupported... for example, what is any statement in the article whose factual accuracy can be disputed?  If anyone seriously questions notability of topic, they are welcome to discuss here or better to open a wp:AFD proceeding.  There is no problem with sourcing that i can see, either.  So, anyhow, tags removed by me in next edit.  Agljones is welcome to express his opinion on this Talk page and/or in a dispute resolution forum such as wp:ANI, but should not deface mainspace articles like this, in my humble opinion.  Actually in the edit I rolled the page back to version before previous Agljones edit, too, in which they had asserted copyright violation and other bad things without evidence. --Doncram (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still watching........--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In the November 2020 disorganized comment by Agljones above, I am accused of "Avoidance vandalism", for removing negative tags. That apparently refers to wp:Avoidance vandalism (new shortcut I created to "Avoidant vandalism" item in a list of "types of vandalism" within policy statement wp:Vandalism), about inappropriate removal of tags for AFD or Copyvio and perhaps others.  To Agljones, tags of AFD or Copyvio would relate to ongoing dispute processes that someone would have had to open at wp:AFD or Copyright problems, which would bring in others' perspectives.  Or the tagging would be part of initiating such processes.  You have not opened any such dispute resolution processes, and I don't see how you could (what specific arguments could you possibly make, that wouldn't get laughed out of court?), and there has been no removal of tags linking to processes like that anywhere.  So there has been no "avoidance vandalism".  I am certainly not trying to avoid anything!  On the other hand, wp:Abuse of tags(another new shortcut)  is another type of vandalism defined there, which in my opinion applies to the repeated addition of inappropriate negative tags by Agljones that has gone on here. --Doncram (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Same thing happened again.

In this edit i just removed an incorrect usage of template:failed verification put in by Agljones. "Failed verification" is applicable when a source purported to support a given assertion doesn't actually do that. If there is no source given (in fact because the assertion is factual and I think non-controversial, not requiring a source), then you cannot fault the source.

In the next edit, I remove the unexplained, incorrect-in-my-view tags asserting that the whole article is biased, relies upon one source, involves copyright violations, and has content that is "disputed". There is no support on this Talk page for any such accusation, if one sets aside Agljones assertions (which are all unconvincing, and which garner no support from any other editor). I have called, politely, for Agljones to explain themself about their negative tagging, which they decline to do. --Doncram (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting,Ehrenkater; i did not see your comment before I made statement just above here and removed the negative tags from the article.
 * You specifically mention the "single source" tag One source and perhaps also support the applicability of self-published tag, which displayed as:
 * "This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. (December 2020)" and
 * "This article may contain excessive or inappropriate references to self-published sources. (December 2020)"
 * About those, I can see no possible basis for concern about using Isle of Man government webpages as definitive source of info about what Registered Buildings and Conservation Areas have been designated by the Isle of Man government. Usual concerns about WP:SELFPUBLISH or reliability of sources simply do not apply to this situation.
 * You comment about content going beyond what is notable; your concern appears to me to be about the extent of detail in coverage provided in this article, an editing matter, not about Wikipedia-notability of the topic, which is what the negative tag questioning Notability was about.  If you are seriously concerned about Wikipedia-notability of the topic, the correct forum IMO would be wp:AFD where you could call for this article to be deleted (which I strongly believe would be rejected out of hand).
 * If your concern is about detail in the list-article, can I ask, is it your opinion that saying "Cottage built by 1869" is too much, about Kate's Cottage, say? Or please clarify about what text, anywhere else, is too much?
 * Based on your 2018 statements about redlinks, maybe it is that you think that creation of extensive separate articles would be, will be the problem (although not about this list-article)? If so, perhaps comment about Draft:St. Mark's, Isle of Man, which is a developing example to provide separate-article coverage about a hamlet and its three Registered Buildings and one Conservation Area.  You might have thought I intended for each Registered Building to get a completely separate article, which was not ever the case.  Do comment more, please. --Doncram (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * About your declining my request to editors at Talk:List of roads in the Isle of Man, that's fine, but unrelated to here (not saying you meant otherwise).
 * Could you make any suggestion about how to advance towards consensus about any of the negative tagging, as you suggest should be done? I honestly don't understand, besides actually having you or someone else running an AFD to test the general view of uninvolved Wikipedia editors about the Wikipedia-notability of this article. --Doncram (talk) 06:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)