Talk:Registered Buildings and Conservation Areas of the Isle of Man/Archive 2

BRD Bold, Revert, Discuss

 * note this is first of 2 discussion sections on "BRD", but as of November 16, 2020 this is the one with more recent comments --Doncram (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

As part of the BRD discussion process or cycle WP:BRD:

Disputed Independent Notability

The issue of independent notability for any article or list article, it  is very clear that Wikipedia requires;- “evidence from reliable independent sources” preferably from secondary sources WP:N, WP:V. The "topic" in the "article title" has to receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" for the article to be notable from sources which "should" be "secondary" sources WP:SECONDARY.

The sources in the list article are completely based on a single primary sources WP:PRIMARY from a self-published official website and there may be an issue may be an issue of WP:COPYVIO with this source, the "Planning and Building control" source, as the whole complete register has been included in the list article. This single primary source does not support the “topic” of the “article title” of  “Registered Buildings of the Isle of Man” as the title of the single primary source is the “Protected Buildings Register” which allows for certain statutory powers to be accessed or utilised by the Department or the Isle of Man Council of Ministers. The self-published primary source that is quoted in the article with this edit is actually titled “Registered Buildings and Conservation Areas”  from the part of the section of the quoted source which is actually part of the “Planning and Building control” technically section and Wikipedia does  not permit the synthesis of sources WP:SYN. This source does not support the “Registered Buildings of the Isle of Man” for the "topic" in the "article title" and for the process of independent notability WP:N and fails the process of verification WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION.

The suggestion may be in the executive summary or lede sentence WP:LEDE that the list article is a list of heritage sites or list of registered buildings/ historical buildings. This is  not supported by the single primary source of the  “Protected Buildings Register” as registered buildings in the twenty “Conservation Zones” in the primary source are deliberately excluded from the “Protected Buildings Register” and this may again suggest the synthesis of sources WP:SYN and Original Research WP:OR not permitted by Wikipedia. Also, buildings that are owed by the Isle of Man Government or certain other local authorities which have similar powers to generally “register buildings,” for any reason and not necessarily  to the “Protected Buildings Register,” have been ignored or deliberately excluded, from the “Protected Buildings Register.”

Disputed – No 117

The official name of this building is the “Keppel Gate Cottage” and is listed by the “Protected Buildings Register” as no 117 and the process of independent verification applies also to list articles WP:V.

The main source for the article for no 117 is a single self-published primary source and as official source  which may be considered by Wikipedia as lacking in  meaningful editorial over-sight and questionable WP:SELFPUBLISH, WP:NOTRELIABLE. The presence of an object on a map is not sufficient by itself to show notability of a subject or reason for inclusion in the list article (see No 241.) and there may be an issue of WP:COPYVIO with the source and abstract. The inclusion in the primary source of an abstract (considered by Wikipedia as a ‘self-published illustration’- see talk:pages for Windy Corner article) refers to a position on a map without any external map co-ordinates and fails the process of verification WP:V,WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. Indicated in this edit  & in the list article,  that the building was constructed in 1870. The primary source actually states that;- “It appears to have been constructed in the early nineteenth century” which is before 1870 and again fails the process of verification WP:V,WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. The structure located on the abstract may be a former shepherds hut or more likely a sheep-pen (or perhaps both) which may have been located  approximately 75 meters due south of the current position of the registered building named as  “Keppel Gate Cottage."agljones(talk)19:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't understand any issue at all here. About the name, the Isle of Man Registered Buildings list webpage calls it "Kate's Cottage, Keppel Gate".Their registration document for it refers to it as "Kate's Cottage in the Parish of Onchan".  It is reasonable in this list-article of Isle of Man Registered Buildings to use the name given by Isle of Man Registered Buildings.
 * About the 1870 date, that appears in the infobox at Kate's Cottage, Isle of Man, as "Built: 1870". The list-article's summary about the topic, "Cottage built in 1870", is a fair-in-my-view and extremely brief summary of the existing article on the topic.  I think it would be appropriate to raise issues of fact about the topic at the article's Talk page; I will watch there. --Doncram (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This is hard to follow. Editor Agljones moved the following reply by me, which I had inserted after the " BRD Bold, Revert, Discuss" title somehwere above, to here. --Doncram (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet another obtuse usage of non-informative discussion section title "BRD" by editor Agljones, which is not the topic to be discussed. If you wish to discuss the BRD process, and I would be very glad if you would discuss and learn about it because I feel you do not understand it, please open a discussion section at wt:BRD (or, better, at Teahouse --19:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)).  It has been pointed out to the editor before that opening multiple discussion sections all titled "BRD" on the same Talk page is especially silly.  At least this is just the first one so far, yay. --Doncram (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This has been cut up. Editor Agljones moved the following reply by me, which I had inserted in reply after their paragraph starting "The suggestion may be in the executive summary or lede sentence..."
 * Ridiculous. You don't understand list notability, nor do you understand copyright, nor do you understand OR, IMHO.  What, you think this list of registered buildings is not a list of protected buildings??  The Isle of Man government says that it is.  The efficient way to address your complaint about the overall existence of this list and its usage of sources is to open an AFD.  Please do that, and you will get feedback about the merits of the AFD and, I suspect, about your wasting other editors' time.  But don't tag-bomb further, without some consensus of other editors. --Doncram (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This no longer follows what it did follow.
 * Actually I will acknowledge to User:agljones that they were not completely bonkers to note (paraphrasing) that "1870 wasn't in the source", which they mentioned in their edit summary when removing it. But it was not presented as being in the registration document reference;  I had deliberately given the reference as general support about the item and then given the brief summary, without source, so what appeared was something like "[181] Cottage built in 1870" with [181] being a reference.  It would have been objectionable if I had presented it as "Cottage built in 1870 [181]".  The unsourced statement is reasonably understood to be an uncontroversial summary from the linked article, which presumably has sources that the reader can consult there.  It's possible that Agljones has not accepted, despite episodes with the List of named corners in the Snaefell Mountain Course that not every assertion in a list-article needs to be explicitly supported by a footnote, where the assertion is non-controversial or where the sourcing is readily available in a linked article that has been summarized. --Doncram (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Coming back to this, I note there are some merits behind or within what Agljones has to say, though the overall blast/attack combined with wholesale tagging in the article is not justified. --Doncram (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * About copyright, though, a directory-like list is simply not copyrightable. And there is no disagreement elsewhere in Wikipedia about using governmental lists of historic sites as has been done here.  If someone really has doubts, there is a copyright questions noticeboard that they know about, where they could inquire, although I suggest they do so in the form of a polite question, rather than outright asserting copyright violation.  Or perhaps better, inquire at Teahouse. --Doncram (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * About Conservation Zones, I agree those are significant and could be covered as part of the same list-article, and it could be reasonable to move/retitle this to Registered Buildings and Conservation Areas of the Isle of Man (currently a redlink) or similar. --Doncram (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * About buildings owned by the Isle of Man government or local authorities which are not included in the Isle of Man's registry, and/or any possibly designated by local authorities, it sounds to me like those are not properly included in this list-article covering the official Isle of Man's registry. Perhaps a separate list-article covering local authorities' historic registers could be created to cover them, or even separate articles about each of them, if there are sources available.  Just as there are Wikipedia list-articles about separate local registries within other countries.  Please do point to any sources available, online or offline. --Doncram (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hatting comments - respect BRD Process

In general, as an editor courtesy and general consensus that editors should not hat comments and any new additional comments should be placed at the bottom of any current discussion. Any additional “non-information” in any further sections may be seen as hating comments or under-cutting the current BRD process and again disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

The general BRD discussion cycle is a general administrative device which is accepted by Wikipedia editors and administrators. Also, any editor interacting with a BRD cycle, then this is a tacit acknowledgement by the same editor of the acceptance of the existence and of the validity of the BRD discussion/cycle.

The use of BRD discussion on pages has enable long-term issues of articles to be resolved. This includes issues of independent notability of articles WP:N, issues of WP:copyvio and the removal of Patent nonsense. Also, the BRD discussion have been used where other editors may have unwittingly introduced major factual errors or using primary sources as secondary sources.

Additional sections on a BRD process may not be desirable and this has been caused by another editor actually first initiating a BRD cycle (apparently no complaint here ?)  or the editor USER:doncram introducing saliently, obtuse ‘non-information’ on various  talk-pages which showed a lack of common-sense WP:COMMON,  not checking with other sources, issues of  historical plagiarism or not considering other problems of  Circular reporting, Confirmation Bias or Common Knowledge.

Due to a recent publication in 2017, this ‘non-information’ introduced by the editor User:doncram has been seen as erroneous and after further research from other sources has been shown to be also inaccurate and the information not verifiable WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. Wikipedia does not permit to quote itself as a source WP:COPYWITHIN and any information ‘summarised’ requires to  follow the normal process of verification WP:V in the source article WP:CITE. This is absent in this case of No 117, which is a primary source WP:PRIMARY, WP:YTCOPYRIGHT and its use may be Original Research WP:OR as suggested in this previous edit without consulting a reliable secondary source(s) WP:SECONDARY for “interpretation” WP:ANALYSIS as the source in the article refers only to the area delineated in "red".

Summary for the BRD Process

The issue of independent notability  for the BRD discussion for this list article is still outstanding and based on a single primary source from an official website and self-published website WP:SELFPUBLISH,  WP:NOTRELIABLE. Multiple sources from the same author or organisation “....are usually regarded by Wikipedia as a single source for the purpose of establishing notability” WP:SIGCOV.

The criteria for independent notability for list-articles and articles for the “topic” in the “article title” are similar and also subject to the same issues of WP:COPYVIO in the source country, which  for the context of the sources quoted as an internal Department process, are broadly similar to  US copyright. Wikipedia describes a list article as;- “....articles composed of one or more embedded lists....or series of items formatted into a list” WP:SAL and subject to the same criteria as an article including WP:COPYVIO, “reliable sources” and sources being “verifiable” WP:V.

Drawing an inference that the Protected Buildings Register is a “list of Registered Buildings of the Isle of Man,” based on architectural and/or historical criteria from an internal administrative Department process, from multiple sources all from an official website, is a “novel”  position which is not permitted by the No original research policy. There are also at least three, possibly five, other key pieces of  (primary)  Isle of Man legislation that are also;-  “….a list of Registered Buildings of the Isle of Man” that are actually overall more inclusive than the list-article title and directly address the “topic” in the “article title .”

Detailed criteria for inclusion

The process of the “detailed criteria for inclusion” is a guideline is required by Wikipedia for the title and the membership criteria  which  has failed and suggest Original Research WP:OR. The synthesis of a  questionable,  overall,  single primary source  WP:PRIMARY from a self-published WP:SELFPUBLISH and official website with an overall lack of meaningful editorial oversight WP:NOTRELIABLE  to  reach a “novel” position is not permitted by Wikipedia WP:SYNTHESIS. The “Protected Buildings Register” is not the only “register” of buildings or in general a ‘protected buildings’ register as shown by the single, primary, self-published source(s) in the list- article and the burden of proof lies with any editor either adding or restoring text WP:BURDEN, WP:FAIL. The “Protected Buildings Register” is not  a “….governmental lists of historic sites….” as these “historic sites” are not buildings. The “Protected Buildings Register” is not a “….governmental list….” of ‘historic buildings’  as they are deliberately excluded along with the buildings in the “Conservation Zones” which are also deliberately excluded from the "Protected Building Register" WP:FALSE.

Redflag

The Protected Buildings Register is only an internal Departmental administrative process as described by the source(s) in the  article with a  primary purpose  is not actually officially described  as suggested by the USER:doncram is  to list “historic sites”  or ‘historic buildings’ WP:REDFLAG. The criteria for an application for registration to the “Protected Buildings Register” may not be the same as the criteria for approval or actual deregistration. This can be demonstrated by the buildings at the former RAF Jurby site and a number of the ‘buildings’ registered is due to the small internal size would not normally require planning permission (as shown by the source in the article) to be demolished and the buildings were also not located in a ‘Conservation Zone’ which gives similar protection as the ‘Protected Buildings Register.’   Also, these buildings at RAF Jurby, (which Wikipedia does not considered to be buildings but structures) for the  “detailed criteria for inclusion”  are not as described by Wikipedia or for the purposes of the BRD discussion as “canonical” WP:CSC  when compared to, for example, the Baillie Scott property  No 160 or even the other Baillie Scott listings, including No 27 which is described as “dubious” by its own registration documents.

RAF Jurby and F-Type Hangers

There are also two F-Type hangers remaining at RAF Jurby and another building is described inaccurately and it is unclear if the building is in another location and has been demolished. The editor User:doncram has also not realised that the registered building at RAF Jurby that had previously attracted adverse comment and being unencyclopedic has been apparently deregistered as it has been repaired. It is not required to be further registered as the large size of the building would require planning permission for demolition. Again these buildings are not “canonical” WP:CSC as described by Wikipedia when compared to No 160. Similar buildings at RAF Andreas, the former Royal Navy Air-station at Ronaldsway including former buildings of the Chain (Low) Home RDF station and the ROTOR3 buildings at Snaefell have not been included on the "Protected Builidngs List" and this would again question the independent notability WP:N and encyclopedic value of the list-article(?) Also, although not normally considered to be Original Research by editors WP:OR, the editor User:doncram has miss-described a further building at the former RAF Jurby station with another genuine 'historic' structure (not actually registered, Why ?) which may not be identified on Wikipedia due to WP:COPYVIO issues. The USER:doncram has not located the copyright traps in the RAF Jurby registration documents (No 264) which are protected by WP:COPYVIO which has resulted in misidentification. This issue of WP:COPYVIO in the source country is more or less the same as US copyright issues. Perhaps the misidentified structure is part of the former repaired building which may have been deregistered ?

Self-published source

The use of a single primary source from a self-published, official website that is not “reliable,” fails the process of  independent notability WP:N and the process of verification in respect to what is ‘saliently’ a non-notable,  internal administrative process. For the purpose of independent notability of the list-article it has not been discussed as Wikipedia requires ;- “….if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources….” WP:LISTN, WP:EXCEPTIONAL,  WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION.

Alliance of Building Conservation

The source quoted for the Alliance of Building Conservation actually only refers to “heritage” and not the “Protected Building Register” and the source fails the process of verification WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. The Alliance of Building Conservation makes a reference to the Building Conservation Forum which is administered by an Isle of Man Government body under an official  trading name. The Building Conservation Forum  also does not refer to the “Protected Building Register”  and again only refers to ‘heritage’ and  is not an independent  reliable source which also fails the process of verification  for the independent nobility of the list article WP:N, WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION.

It is ambiguous for the BRD process that the reference to the Alliance of Building Conservation is part of the “direct statement” of the lead section. This may suggest bias WP:BIAS or not conforming to a neutral point of view WP:NPOV in particular to the Baille Scott references and the process of deregistration (eg Glencrutchery House, Majestic House Hotel, ATC Ronaldsway, RAF Jurby.

Standalone lists and size

The Wikipedia Guideline for standalone lists are commonly composed to satisfy only one of three criteria WP:CSC which the list-article fails all three criteria (ie article is greater than 32K) and should be considered to be an article rather than a list-article. This is the same problem with this list article which also  fails all three  same criteria WP:CSC  including the issue of independent notability WP:N. Wikipedia does not permit to quote itself as a source as with No 117 WP:COPYWITHIN and any information ‘summarized’ requires to follow the normal process of verification WP:V in the source article and primary sources should not be summarised as secondary sources WP:PRIMARY.

The ‘list’ article content of the ‘article’  and the use of the single,  primary, self-published, official  source(s) does not determine notability,  as notability is a property of a subject and not the (list) article WP:ARTN, WP:N. agljones(talk)21:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It seems impossible to communicate for real here. Agljones, you moved my inserted replies to your previous comments, so my replies are now out of context, and it looks like your previous assertions have not been replied to.  And you replaced subsection titles with formatting that makes it hard to insert replies.  Especially with your bold formatting about hating comments (did you mean "hatting"?), I gather the point is you don't want discussion, you don't want to actually communicate, and you want to rant on about numerous different topics without accepting any feedback.  In general it works in Wikipedia to talk about separate issues in small discussion sections.  Here, instead, the obvious reply then is a complete dismissal:  Too Long.  If there is anything useful in what you said, it is lost in all the rest.  Oh well, too bad. --Doncram (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia would again consider any editor interacting with any part of BRD discussion/cycle as a tacit admission of accepting the validity of any comments made during the BRD process rather than dismissing it outright.  Also, by spuriously deleting the notability template, Wikipedia considers this as the editors acceptance of an underlying independent nobility issue.


 * Any comments that have been rejected due only to perceived length,  (which is actually shorter than the many ‘obtuse,’ sections of ‘non-information’ and shorter than the OVERLONG article) may be seen as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point due to the editor USER:doncram repeatedly introducing spurious comments and many non-relevant, off-topic  issues in reference to stand-alone list articles.


 * The BRD cycle does not exclude many overlapping points to be discussed at the same time. In respect to this BRD cycle there is only one main single item which is being discussed.  This refers to the articles independent notability WP:N which is currently outstanding.  Sources to address this issue of the articles independent notability should be added to the article and again Wikipedia clarifies this policy as for sources as;- "….”Significant coverage,”  addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.”


 * In regard to previous BRD discussion(s), the editor USER:doncram has received a generalised warning from an uninvolved  editor in the respect to editor behaviour WP:CIVIL and the use of ‘laundry lists.”  Repeating ‘laundry’ lists and ‘off-topic’ comments in the BRD discussion or talk:page may be seen by other editors as ‘supermarket shopping’ and again disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. agljones(talk)18:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You lose me with the first sentence ("Wikipedia would again consider any editor interacting with any part of BRD discussion/cycle as a tacit admission of accepting the validity of any comments made during the BRD process rather than dismissing it outright"), which I don't understand, and I'll stop there.  Too bad if you had a point to make.  If you actually want to achieve communication, you need to follow normal Talk page practices, including keeping comments short and clearly on point, within sensibly named discussion sections. --Doncram (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

In respect to this BRD cycle there is only one main single item which is being discussed. This refers to the articles independent notability WP:N. The article contains 237 primary references all from a single self-published source WP:SELFPUBLISH  from an official website WP:NOTRELIABLE and may not follow  all the guidelines for the citation of inline references. Multiple sources from the same author or organization “are usually regarded by Wikipedia as a single source for the purpose of establishing notability” WP:SIGCOV. In respect to the remaining references out of a total of 287, none of these references refer to the articles independent notability WP:N and again using primary sources as secondary sources WP:PRIMARY.


 * The buildings in the “Conservation Zones,” ‘historic’ buildings,  interiors of buildings  and/or ‘Department’ buildings are all deliberately excluded from the Protected Building Register. Other genuine historic buildings without any underlying historic architectural  interests (eg ‘blue’ or ‘red’ plaque buildings) are by definition also excluded from the Protected Building Register.  To  use these self-published primary sources relative to the US NRHP articles as a;-  “….governmental lists of historic sites….” which may or may not have  been ambiguously referred to by the editor USER:doncram  in the  edit 19:31, 23 April 2018 for this talk:page discussion,  is  to reach a clearly “novel” position and  a synthesis of sources,  both not permitted by Wikipedia  WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:REDFLAG.


 * The article does not have a clearly defined lede paragraph/section WP:LEDE as required by Wikipedia as the article is not a stand-alone list article.   There are actual six registers of properties,  ie lists of ‘Registered Properties in the Isle of Man’, plus three or five other registers of buildings, structures and land (again, “registered properties in the Isle of Man”) and none of this registers are officially defined as -  “….governmental lists of historic sites….” The “Protected Buildings Register” is  only an  ‘internal administrative procedure’ relative to the other six registers, the process of Registered Building Consent and the Building Control Act 1991 and its stated primary function is again not defined as ;-  “….governmental lists of historic sites….”.  The clearly defined lede section for the article is  required when there is some ambiguity over the “topic” in the “article title,” which may be seen by other editors as exclusively promotional (again, no objection here….. [Why ?])

Comments to article vandalism are again trivial and spurious objections as the issue of the articles independent notability WP:N has not been satisfactorily resolved. The editor USER:doncram should desist from repeatedly hatting comments WP:HAT and if the same editor has difficulty in locating items in article histories then the editor USER:doncram should refer to Teahouse for help in the matter, rather than repeatedly raise contradictory objections just to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.

The BRD cycle WP:BRD requires a summary. For the ‘detailed criteria’ for inclusion the ‘membership criteria’ should only be limited to linked articles of public owned properties (not structures) with a photograph that are least equivalent to the UK Grade II list standard. This would which satisfies Wikipedia guidelines WP:CSC as the editor USER:doncram has previously made repeated ambiguous references to the policy guidelines for stand-alone list articles for this article with the edit of 19:31, 23 April 2018 for this talk:page discussion. For stand-alone list articles, the policy guidelines WP:CSC removes all “trivial” and “off-topic” entries (eg RAF Jurby aerodrome including properties that are post-War II era and other non-“canonical” entries that are not either UK Grade I or Grade II list standard: - eg “Kate’s House” in this list-article - see below).

For the summary for the BRD cycle, Independent secondary sources may be required to refer to both the “Protected Buildings Register” and “registered buildings” in the same inline citation/source which also supports the material “directly.” The ‘non-controversial’  process of summarization for a statement without a source….. as ambiguously referred to in edit of 01:26, 22 April 2018 by the editor USER:doncram in this article page is saliently Original Research WP:OR. Wikipedia policy and guidelines are clear that all information has to be verifiable WP:V and the ‘non-controversial’ process of summarization is  unsustainable and unjustifiable and again disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (eg “Kates House” in this list-article). agljones(talk)18:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, what is the difference between this discussion section named "" and the other discussion section named "" further below? Assuming from their titles that they both are about discussion of the BRD process generally, I suggest that they be continued at Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle or at the Teahouse.  Perhaps you can make your arguments for or against "BRD" generally there.  I suggest you ask other editors about the merits of repetitively opening discussion sections with opaque titles and unclear objectives, too.
 * The latest edit here, just above, was approximately simultaneous with some negative tagging in the article. The addition and removal of those tags is discussed below at . --Doncram (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In respect to this BRD cycle there is only one main single item which is being discussed. This refers to the articles independent notability WP:N.


 * The editor USER:doncram with this talk page has repeatedly introduced OVERLONG talk:page sections without clear objectives, pointless commentaries, pointless text-walls with a series of miscellaneous and divergent section titles. With this talk:page discussion,  (as with other talk:page discussions), there is a general consensus from editors that the title and talk:page objectives are clear. The editor USER:doncram had  completely misidentified a building 06/241.2 which may suggest Original Research WP:OR.  With other editors replying to the talk:page discussion and/or reverting edits this would suggest that the talk:page title and objectives are clear.


 * After a second occurrence of contradictory complaints, for the BRD cycle discussion, as with this talk page, other editors may suggest that this talk:page section is a suitable forum, as demonstrated by the editor USER:doncram  with a spurious supplemental talk:page edit of 19:13, 9 September 2018 at this tallk:page.  The overall various  contradictory comments by the editor USER:doncram at this talk:page suggest that the BRD cycle discussion is being initiated correctly, supported by the comments of another uninvolved editor.


 * Again, the editor USER:doncram should cease the hatting of comments WP:HAT including changing section titles (again hatting), including the undercutting of comments by creating additional sections or titles (another form of hatting).  The editor USER:doncram  should cease  redirecting  talk:page comments to other sections or other talk:pages (hatting again) which contradicts the editors previous comments about talk:page behaviour.WP:MOS The editor USER:doncram should also cease creating a secondary “narrative” and direct the comments  to this section of the  talk:page discussion rather than deflecting the talk:page conversation to other issues or other miscellaneous sections.


 * The editor USER:doncram may again perhaps refer to TEAHOUSE for an explanation that  Wikipedia guidelines are clear that for the independent notability of the “ topic” in the “article title,” that  the sources “….should be secondary…..” and also more importantly  be “independent of the subject topic” WP:GNC.  The article does contains not 237 sources, primary or otherwise,  for establishing  notability and the continuing use of all these 237 sources causes problems  WP:PRIMARY.  The “topic” in the “article title”  contains overall  only one single source for establishing independent notability  which is not independent of the subject  or received “significant coverage” as required by Wikipedia guidelines WP:GNC.  Multiple sources from the same author or organization “are usually regarded by Wikipedia as a single source for the purpose of establishing notability” WP:SIGCOV.   Also, the 237 primary sources are “self-serving,” questionable sources WP:QUESTIONABLE with a poor reputation for accuracy and checking facts (ie No 117, No 06/241 etc ),  lacking  meaningful “editorial oversight” and “editorial integrity”   (eg over emphasis on  Baillie Scott as shown by the ABC ‘Buildings at Risk’ articles) that may not be considered as  being “reliable” for the purposes of verification required by Wikipedia WP:V.


 * Again for the summary of the BRD cycle, the editor USER:doncram has made a very vague, unsubstantiated reference to an  unidentified talk:page with edit of 19:10, 9 September 2018 at this talk page. The editor USER:doncram, has previously initiated an unsolicited discussion on the same unidentified  talk:page  with an opaque title and unclear objectives.  Within the same discussion the editor USER:doncram has made an  unexplained reference to a stand-alone list article based completely on primary sources directly from the “Protected Building Register” and the USER:doncram  editor has then made a generalised tacit admission that any article based on these sources would not be notable, ie not pass the Wikipedia policy of independent notability WP:N.   The edit of 13:22, 13 September 2018 at this talk page is the third contradictory complaint by the editor USER:doncram and there is no issue of negative tagging and the editor USER:doncram has previously received a general warning for talk:page behaviour in respect to  the use of ‘laundry lists,’ off-topic comments,  spurious reversal of edits from an uninvolved editor and also saliently disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.WP:DISRUPTIVE agljones(talk) 20:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment, December 16, 2016 now. Too long, and no new ideas to respond to.  Agljones added multiple random negative tags to the article.  No one else would ever support any views supporting the tags.  I removed them. --Doncram (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It is a requirement by Wikipedia for editors to address talk:pages directly and also in a manner which is considered by Wikipedia as suitable WP:MOS.

The editor USER:doncram has made repeated unexplained references to stand-alone articles at this talk:page and also made an unsolicited reference to a stand-alone list article based on the same 237 primary sources which the editor USER:doncram considered not to be notable WP:N. The editor USER:doncram has not explained these remarks or why the same 237 primary sources from a single, self-published website are now considered suitable for the independent notability of an article. The editor USER:doncram has not explained the term “Registered Building Consent” in edit 18:42, 19 August 2018 at this talk:page with reference to the independent notability of the article WP:N and also in respect to the term "Registered Building" in the editors article page edit summary of 21:02, 16 December 2018 (?)

The spurious complaints about what USER:doncram may have considered as overlong sections is actually caused by the editor USER:doncram introducing to this talk:page a series of miscellaneous and divergent section titles which contradicts the editors comments of 20:46, 16 December 2018 at this talk:page.

The editor USER:doncram should not again resort to spurious complaints and the editor USER:doncram should not unilaterally decide which Wikipedia processes may or may not be applied to a particular talk:page or talk:page section. The editor USER:doncram should not use the edit summary as an extension of any article or any talk:page discussion.agljones(talk)20:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It is clear that the BRD discussion is in reference to a single subject of the articles independent notability WP:N.  This may or may not comprise of a number of  issues that may relate to source verifiability, source reliability, the use of self-published primary sources or source neutral point of view and also WP:COPYVIO as defined by Wikipedia relating to independent notability.  The BRD process or cycle does not prevent the discussion of multiple issues in a single string.  The editor USER:doncram has made repeated contradictory complaints and should not introduce a “secondary” narrative WP:GAME. It is clearly inappropriate to repeatedly list the same “diffs” for issues in regard to the unexplained and vague references to stand-alone list articles and the US NRHP articles WP:FORUMSHOP and article notability is not defined by article content  WP:NNC.


 * Certain linked sections need to be read in full rather than refer to a "diff" such as this section by the editor USER:doncram of edit 19:13, 9 September 2018 at this talk:page. The use of the embedded list and the repeated references to stand-alone list articles is unexplained as a previous unsolicited, unidentified comment  by the USER:doncram without a "diff" in the same edit of 19:13, 9 September 2018 made an unexplained reference to any stand-alone list article based on these 237 primary sources would not be notable WP:N.  Perhaps the editor was referring to another edit in comment of 19:13, 9 September 2018 and as a “diff” was not included the issue of communication lies with the editor. The largely mutually exclusive Conservation Zones  do not relate to either historic areas or actual districts. For example, the remains of the old 17th & 18th Century Douglas fishing village  was largely demolished in the 1930’s and  the historic district of Douglas was originally a small part of the parish of Kirk Conchan. Many of the Douglas Conservation Zones represent localised, sporadic and highly speculative commercial building phases often in an economic downturn: genuine historic interest such as the WW2 era Internment Camps have been ignored by the Conservation Zones such as Hutchinson Square. The Conservation Zones represent a significant shift in departmental policy away from the generally mutually exclusive register which is not reflected by the lead paragraph. Again the Conservation Zones would;-  “…require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability” WP:GEOFEAT and for buildings requires “significant coverage” WP:BUILD  for notability.


 * As many of the article entries in the embed list are “run of the mill” WP:MILL (residential) properties which may not make either the directory or the embedded list notable, WP:GEOFEAT, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is also a further “right to privacy” for Run-of-the-mill residential properties which may also require owners written consent as a consideration to include photographs or linking of WP:COPYVIO  photographs including “notable” entries in the embedded list (ie No 117, No 160). The editor USER:doncram may only be actually referring to historic zones of US (NRHP) cities in the section of 19:13, 9 September 2018 at this talk:page, as many European cities and towns have been subject to wartime bombing campaigns, post-war building demolition or the excessive negative effects of inappropriate post-war planning.


 * The issue of communication lies with the actual article. The article is effectively an undetermined “stub-article” without sufficient sources to determine independent nobility WP:N. At  least one “secondary source” is required by Wikipedia guidelines and therefore as the article  is exclusively based on primary sources and this breaches the Wikipedia: WP:No original research requirement “… to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization” WP:WHYN.  All articles must be based on secondary sources and all articles must have "third-party" or "independent sources" to conform with the article neutral point of view guidelines WP:NPOV which excludes the “affiliates” of the ABC 'Building at Risk' articles or register sources or both. The article is largely unencyclopedic, “….characterized as error-prone, vague, and generally impart little usable information…”  and a directory with a random collection of facts not permitted by Wikipedia WP:NOT.  Certain types of buildings are included only due to the ‘internal Department administrative procedure’  or excluded due to  weaknesses in the  administrative processes created by deliberate fundamental omissions in the legislation (eg No 117, No 06/241.2) which is explained in the ABC 'Buildings at Risk' articles.


 * The register deliberately excludes property owned by Manx National Heritage (MNH) and its subsidiaries including the Manx National Trust (MNT). Manx National Heritage is the largest and most significant owner of numerous important key “heritage sites” in the Isle of Man. This includes the various “heritage buildings” owned by Manx National Heritage at Cregneash village.  The comments in regard to thatched buildings at Cregneash village and the ABC source in paragraph 3 & 5 of the lead paragraph are unencyclopedic, speculative and Original Research WP:OR, WP:REDFLAG. The same paragraphs 3 & 5  do not state a conclusion as required by Wikipedia for the lead paragraph(s) WP:LEDE and is a synthesis of sources not permitted by Wikipedia WP: SYNTHESIS as the main functions of the legislation and other other registers numbered 1 to 6 are not explained. The issues of the Baillie Scott registered properties is a demonstration of article bias WP:BIAS as shown by the deregistration and demolition of No 175 and registrations such as No 117, 160 and 241 are saliently not equivalent to UK Grade II, Grade II* or Grade 1 and are a series of indiscriminate, excessive, or irrelevant examples.

In regard to the content directive by editor T. Canens of 08:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive224 []

Text falling under content directive to be improved, deleted or moved to editors userspace:

The content in paragraphs 1 to 5 and the embed list is to be improved by the editor USER:doncram or merged to another article or removed to the editors user space as described the content directive by editor T. Canens of 08:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive224 [].agljones(talk)10:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for nothing in terms of my request that you use and respond in Talk page sections having meaningful section names.
 * About your restoring negative tags, which I just removed again, please discuss at Talk page section on Negative tagging, below. Notability of overall topic, as noted below, might be disputed by an AFD process, which would attract numerous outside/uninvolved editors, and which I predict would lead to near-unanimous "Keep" outcome.  Please see below where I warn about potential request for a topic ban.
 * About the quoted content above which you would delete, well that is the entire lead of the list-article. (Thank you for quoting clearly and including a "reflist-talk" template to make that suggestion comprehensible, though.) In a separate discussion section about the lead, you could perhaps suggest a different paragraph or two, but simply erasing all lead for this longish list-article is a non-starter.  I don't think this topic is at all like the topics covered in a 2011 dispute, so citing that is not helpful (nor hurtful to me either, I don't mind if you want to keep on mentioning it, but it is simply irrelevant for others I think). --Doncram (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The BRD discussion is in reference to a single subject of the articles independent notability WP:N and the “topic” in the “article title.”

The directive from T. Canens of 08:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive224 [] is applicable as it refers to any “….Doncram-created content that is defined in this discussion as unacceptable…”  and the creation of “stubs” and also “similar stubs.”    The discussion in the directive tentively refers to the editor User:doncram using unsubstantiated ‘databases’  and the editor  creating  unnecessary stub-articles and ‘sub-categories’ and the excessive, inappropriate and overuse of quotations under-copyright. The directive also referred to the perceived experience of other editors that the USER:doncram cannot interpret local content consistent to what is required by Wikipedia. The editor USER:doncram has not understood the differences between the functions of primary and secondary legislation on which the 237 primary sources are  based and secondary legislation may not create further secondary legislation. The editor USER:doncram has also not  understood  the overall process or understood significance and the functions of the six other registers.

This is the case in this article as the USER:doncram has been unable to interpret or assess appropriate local content and is consistent  with the issues with the directive. This is also shown by paragraph 3 of the lead paragraph as all Manx National Heritage property, buildings and land is deliberately excluded from the register including Cregneash village. The editor USER:doncram has received a formal warning from Wikipedia that all sources should be checked against an appropriate second source and the editor has fundamentally missed the background content in respect to Manx National Heritage which is not relevant to the article. The lede sentence and the lead paragraphs do not contain a summary as required by Wikipedia WP:LEDE  and are as described by the directive as being;- “….characterized as error-prone, vague, and generally impart little usable information…” which is unacceptable as described by the directive and also the discussion in the noticeboards  discussion for  Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive224 []

This Registered Buildings in the Isle of Man article is “…Doncram-created content…” and is a ‘stub-article’ which falls under the description of the directive with unacceptable content. The USER:doncram has also discussed at this talk:page, using another databases to create “historic areas,” either as a separate article or incorporated into the main article. The application of the directive is generally appropriate as the editor USER:doncram has made various and repeated  unexplained references at this talk:page to the US NHRP listings and to a stand-alone list- article WP:FORUMSHOP.

If the editor USER:doncram may intend to revise the article lead paragraphs to include a summary of the legislation since 1981 for “registered buildings,” planning applications, protected buildings register, “Conservation Zones”….etc, or comaprsions with the UK legilsation etc,etc.... as shown by source 2 and paragraph  in respect to  the deliberate omissions in the legislation or the recent attempts at  reform of the legislation. Then this will require a series of secondary or third party sources including for independent notability WP:N. These sources may be requested at WP:REREQ. The directive may suggest that is the most appropriate form of action in the noticeboard Archive224#Doncram_NHRP_stubs []. This would suggest that is the correct approach for the BRD discussion by the inclusion or paragraph (2) which anchors the lead paragraph(s) around source (2). It is also the correct approach for Wikipedia guidelines in regarding neutral point of view WP:NPOV  and the ABC Alliance of Building Conservation source in paragraph 5 and source 6: otherwise, the ABC source is not  a “significant minority” view in the sources which is also shown by the ABC  ‘Building at Risk’ articles for April-November 2018 and Wikipedia may not permit the synthesis of sources WP:SYN. The Burden of Proof, in respect to the addition of restoration of text lies with the editor WP:BURDEN, WP:FAIL, WP:REDFLAG

The lede sentence in the article states; “This is a list of Registered Buildings of the Isle of Man. The “topic” in the “article title” states Registered Buildings in the Isle of Man which is not a stand-alone list  article. The editor USER:doncram has made unsolicited, unexplained reference to a stand-alone list article based completely on the 237 primary sources and  editor has then made a generalised tacit admission that any list- article based on these sources would not be notable or explained how the 237 primary sources and are now considered suitable for the independent notability of the current article. Is the article an article or a stand-alone list-article ? This is required to be clarified or the article moved to the editors USER:doncram  userspace as shown by the directive. If it is confirmed that it is a   stand-alone list article, then Wikipedia guides WP:CSC can remove all the non-canonical, off-topic and trivial entries as previously suggested by the BRD cycle.

The lede sentence and lead paragraphs only refer to “Registered Buildings” and not the term “Protected Buildings Register:”


 * In regard to independent notability WP:N, current source (1) for the lede sentence makes repeated references to "Registered Buildings" and a single reference to "Registered Building Consent" and includes a table.  The article includes an embedded table copied form source 1 which breaches WP:COPYVIO as the whole table has been copied and may suggest plagiarism.  The enclosed sources for embedded table contain primary 237 sources which reference the term "Protected Buildings register" and the term "Registered Buildings" and does not contain the term "Registered Building Consent."


 * Result, synthesis of sources not permitted by WikipediaWP:SYN and failed verification for the embedded table and lead paragraph WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION and  “article content does not determine notability” WP:NNC.


 * If the embedded table uses all 237 primary sources to build the table, at least one “secondary source” is required by Wikipedia guidelines for the Wikipedia WP:No original research requirement and  all articles must have "third-party" or "independent sources" to conform with the article neutral point of view guidelines WP:NPOV.


 * Result, the article fails Wikipedia guidelines for WP:No original research and is Original Research WP:OR as the article is based on 274 primary sources.


 * Result: the lede sentence and lead paragraph fail verification and independent notably as the source (1) refers only to "Registered Building Consent" WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION.


 * The term “Registered Building” in the Isle of Man applies also to the Registers of Planning Applications (ie register no 1 of 6) which is not explained in the lede sentence(s) and Wikipedia may not permit the synthesis of sources WP:SYN or Original Research WP:OR.


 * Result; The term “Registered Buildings” fails the verification process as shown by the lede sentence  WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION in respect to register No 1 for “Registers of Planning Applications” or register No 2 “Registers of applications for  Registered Building Consent.” (see build planning approval forms for No 117 and the term “Interested Person.”)


 * In regard to paragraph 5 and primary source 6 from the ABC Alliance of Building Consortium, this actually refers to the "Protected Buildings Register" and does not refer to "Registered Building Consent" in source (1).


 * Result, failed verification for the lede sentence WP:V, WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. Source 6, makes reference to what Wikipedia would refer to in respect to a "reliable source" as an "affiliate" of source (1), (2) & (3).  A further organisation in source (6) is an "affiliate" of the ABC 'Building at Risk' articles and the "Baillie Scott" articles of May 2018 and December 2018 refers to a further "affiliate" of source (1) & (3).


 * Result, the ABC source is a primary source and with its three "affiliates" and the source lead statement breaches the neutral point of view guidelines WP:NPOV and a "balanced article" is required by Wilipedia guidelines to "....ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization" WP:WHYN.


 * The ABC – Alliance for Building Conservation ‘Buildings at Risk’ do not support independent notability of the article WP:N as they are not “independent of the subject topic” WP:GNC and often do not refer to either the term “Protected Buildings Register” and the term “Registered Buildings” in the same article.  The “affiliate” in the ABC organisation is an “Interested Person” in association with the term “Registered Building Consent” and is listed in the deregistration of No 175 and is termed as in “Interested Person” in the planning application of No 117 and the issue of “Registered Building Consent.”


 * Result, fails the process of verification WP:V, WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION (See talk:page Windy Corner, Isle of Man).


 * There is an issue of neutral point of view WP:NPOV and article bias WP:BIAS as the Baillie Scott ,‘Arts and Crafts’ style is not  a “significant minority” view in the sources which is also shown by the ‘Building at Risk’ articles for April-September 2018 including the statement by the second "affiliate" of source (1) which demonstrates the 237 primary sources as   “self-serving,” questionable sources WP:QUESTIONABLE with a poor reputation for accuracy and checking facts, lacking  meaningful “editorial oversight” and “editorial integrity.”


 * Result, Wikipedia may not permit the synthesis of sources WP:SYN. More importantly for the summary for the BRD cycle, this type of ‘Arts and Craft’ architectural style is largely omitted from the Protected Buildings Register (again, see deregistration of No 175) and  is omitted from the Conservation Zones, (eg upper Victoria Road, Douglas. (Why (?)).


 * Result: This may suggest that for the BRD cycle and again the article is largely unencyclopedic and a random collection of facts not permitted by Wikipedia WP:NOT. This is supported by the fact that source 1  excludes properties including buildings and “heritage sites” owned by Manx National Heritage which includes the Cregneash site as described in the third lead paragraph.


 * Paragraph (3) and source (4) does not refer to either the term “Protected Buildings Register” or “Registered Building Consent.”  The same paragraph does not explain the significance of thatched cottages or the different types and the register does not included buildings of a similar vernacular style or general styles that have the thatched roof  removed (?)  or explain the modern interpretation of the “cottage” style eg Clypse House Cottage, eg Brandywell Cottage, Sarah’s Cottage and Keppel Gate Cottage or “Tate’s Cottage” (now known as ‘Kate’s Cottage’ (No 117)  which was changed to “Kate’s House” by the editor USER:doncram in stand-alone list article referred to in this BRD discussion by the same editor. The discussion for directive from  T. Canens of 08:14, 20 June 2011 makes repeated references to the editor USER:doncram  changing names for an unexplained reason and not supported by sources.


 * Also, source (4) is largely concerned by the methodology and style of thatched roofs separate from the actually registered buildings in the article. This is shown by the photographs in the buildings as at least two or more of these buildings have been demolished  and a further two been damaged by fire (?)  One of the buildings is a modern “brick” replica and a second building has a “false” internal roof and internal ceiling and  both are not consistent with the main vernacular style as shown by the Cregneash village which is deliberately excluded from the register.


 * The article contains 237 primary sources from a period of over 39 years and at least one direct secondary source is required by Wikipedia guidelines for evaluating primary sources WP:SECONDARY, WP:WHYN.  Wikipedia, also suggests that great care must be taken with the selection of primary sources including the names of living people WP:BLP,  which is the issue with the all 237 primary sources.


 * Result, all primary sources to be replaced by “neutral” secondary sources which would give an indication of “significant coverage” WP:GNC, WP:BUILD  required for independent notability  WP:N.


 * The Archive 224#Doncram_NHRP_stubs discussion makes a reference to the UK Listed Buildings and Grade II, Grade II* and Grade I and the  US NHRP listings by the editor USER:doncram.  The register that same editor refers to in this talk:page, the legislation is based verbatim on the UK Listed Buildings Act, although a small part (perhaps less than 1 per cent) of the Isle of Man legislation directly quotes verbatim the UK legislation for listed buildings.


 * Result, despite the verbatim quotation of the UK legislation, certain buildings are only included due to their small size (ie 06/241.1) and are not either UK Grade II standard or above.  Other buildings such  are only included due to the lack of protection offered by the legislation (?) (another example of deliberate omissions in the legislations or policy or both and No 188 is another  “non-canonical,” “ trivial” and “off-topic”  entry which is not saliently UK Grade II.)  Relative to the repeated unexplained US NHRP references and the policy declaration in source (3), this  generally excludes buildings built or amended after 1920.  This also includes No 117, built in 1902-04 (the 1870 reference in the article refers to the road builidng, possibely actually 1864-1866) extensively amended sometime after 1920 and No 160 amended in the 1960’s and again in 2013 losing part or all of the distinctive Baillie Scott gardens which are an exclusive part of the Baillie Scott design (see deregistration of No 175).

The protected buildings register and the “Conservation Zones” are generally mutually exclusive, which is the opposite to the UK where listed buildings and ‘Conservation Areas’ are mutually inclusive. Despite the many assertions by the editor USER:doncram  with talk:page edits  of 20:27, 13 April 2018 and 19:13, 9 September 2018, it is unexplained the comparison that should be made to US NRHP articles. If an actual relevant article comparison is made to the US NRHP introductory articles in regard to  architectural or historical building styles then again the article is largely non-encyclopedic. Again, the article does not reflect changes in relation to architectural or historical building styles  as shown by the US NRHP introductory articles and is only a random collection of facts which suggestion Original Research WP:OR and the use of the embedded list and the repeated stand-alone list articles is unexplained. The article is again effectively an undetermined “stub-article” without sources to determine independent nobility WP:N. With the deliberate exclusion the Manx National Heritage properties, this may again suggest that for the BRD cycle the article is largely unencyclopedic and a random collection of facts not permitted by Wikipedia WP:NOT.

There is not an issue under the directive of “edit warring” in respect to negative tagging as any article has to have at least one “secondary source” is required by Wikipedia guidelines for the Wikipedia WP:No original research requirement and  all articles must have "third-party" or "independent sources" to conform with the article neutral point of view guidelines WP:NPOV.

The editor USER:doncram does not refer directly to any particular Wikipedia policy or Wikipedia policy guidelines, only to a series of contradictory complaints and repeated article promotion WP:FORUMSHOP. The editor USER:doncram, may also refer incorrectly to the Wikipedia guidelines to this article in regard to a number of unexplained comments to stand-alone list articles. From a previous episode, the editor USER:doncram has not understood that the cherry-picking of sources may be seen as the synthesis of sources WP:SYN, largely unencyclopedic and not consistent with the original meaning of the sources. The editor USER:doncram has consistently been criticised for the extensively poor selection of sources and article titles in discussion in the directive which may also apply to the stand-alone article referred to in the BRD cycle.

The summary for the BRD cycle/ discussion is that the lede sentence, lead summary and the embedded list need to be either revised, removed or merged to another article or moved to the editors USER:doncram  userspace as shown by the directive from T. Canens of 08:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There is not an issue under the directive of “edit warring” in respect to negative tagging as any article has to have at least one “secondary source” is required by Wikipedia guidelines for the Wikipedia WP:No original research requirement and  all articles must have "third-party" or "independent sources" to conform with the article neutral point of view guidelines WP:NPOV. The directive from T. Canens of 08:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive224 [] is applicable as content for "other stubs"  and "Doncram-created content" and again there is no issue of "editing warring."

Editor should not hat comments WP:HATTING or direct comments to further sub-sections  or other pages (another form of hatting) which may be nullified by other editors replying instead. Editors should not act unilaterally and decided which process apply to a talk:page or article or which may be considered inammissibile or create secondary "narratives" in further sub-sections. Editors may refer to the Manual of Style, editor guidlines and essays WP:MOS to considered that all policy guidelines are compiled with before editing a talk:page section. agljones(talk)20:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The latest comment above is long and rambling about numerous things. However it also again asserts that this discussion section is solely about "a single subject of the articles independent notability WP:N."   Sorry I don't agree that this list-article is about a non-notable topic. --Doncram (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * P.S. I think I saw in the latest long comment some stuff relating to and to .  Too bad, I am not going to copy-paste them to those discussion sections and try to make sense of them, it is too hard to try to communicate with someone who will not cooperate in organizing discussion for humans to understand. --Doncram (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

By making a reply of 04:43, 3 January 2019, it is a tacit admission by the editor USER:doncram of the validity of the WP:BRD cycle/discussion, despite the same editors repeated comments to the contrary. (Rather than the redirecting comments to contradictory separate sections (another form of hatting) and reintroducing a “secondary” narrative and editors should desist from this practice)

If the editor USER:doncram does not refer directly to any specific comment then there is no issue of communication. For the purposes of the BRD cycle, the conclusion is that the candidate directory styled stub-article does not contain any secondary source references as required by Wikipedia guidelines and the editor makes no particular reference to any Wikipedia policy guideline. This completely contradicts the same editors comments in respect to communication issues or alleged negative tagging.

Vandalism is a Wikipedia policy. This includes the removal of tags which may been seen by other editors as AVOIDANCE vandalism.

The editor User:doncram may seek advice from TEAHOUSE for when to remove tags. The tags may be removed from this article when the issue of the article lacking citations to reliable, secondary sources, written by third-parties to the topic is resolved (perhaps the tags removed by a non-involved third party.)  This is a Wikipedia policy rather than asserting that a consensus is required to remove the tags. The article is not a list article as defined by Wikipedia policy. It is not identified as such by its title as a list title and is an article with an embedded list.

For information for other editors, the USER:doncram has previously admitted that the (primary) sources do not support notability and there is an editor actually consensus for the inclusion of the tags. The editor also has admitted that the disputed sources are placeholder primary sources and Wikipedia policy requires for the removal of the tags requires at least one secondary source is required from a third party source. The editor User:doncram in a 57 minute period on the 1st January/2nd January 2020 has proceeded to vandalise 8 articles in the Isle of Man network of articles, removing inline citations for article notability in 7 articles and adding inaccurate non verifiable placeholder text to this article (it is not permitted to quote a template as a source).

The editor USER:doncram is familiar with the issues of not providing sufficient secondary sources which resulted in the removal of auto patroller rights, an indefinite ban on creating new articles and warned that "that further creation of articles based on directory-style resource may lead to other sanctions"   by the editor User:Barkeep49 on the 14th May 2020.

Again, for the explanation, this candidate article is based almost completely on primary sources from an official placeholder website. This differ from primary sources, for example, from from the US Historic Register sources. The sources from the official directory-style website for the purposes of COPYVIO are considered "work in progress" as they contain documentary evidence, maps, photos, abstracts and text which are themselves have issues of copyright in compilation (this is the issue for No 117). The COPYVIO issue of "work in progress" is the same in the host country as in the US and linking material may be seen as COPYVIO (editors may refer to the US act Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1988 or perhaps 2000 for COPYVIO linking).

agljones(talk)17:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Please note that User:Agljones's comment seems misplaced, being located here in the older of two discussion sections titled "BRD" etc. And as with previous long posts by Agljones, this touches on many different points which would better be communicated and discussed in meaningfully-named discussion sections on those smaller topics.  I don't feel especially obligated to try to respond to all assertions here, given lack of basic courtesy of communicating reasonably (in separate discussions).  But, FYI, I will reply now about new allegations of copyvio in the already-existing section on copyvio below.  And I will state that I don't agree with Agljones' assertions that I personally have "admitted" to various bad things; note these assertions are not supported by diffs.  About primary sources, wp:PRIMARY states clearly that primary sources may be used with care, i.e. when basic facts are stated from the primary sources without subjective interpretation, as was done in development of this list-article.  And there is no specific item at all identified by Agljones as being an unfairly "interpreted" statement. I might respond more in other narrower, sensibly named discussion sections.  Possibly/probably there are assertions by Agljones here that I won't get around to responding to, because the above is too long and disorganized.  This is too bad in terms of Agljones' seeming to fail in communication, again, in my opinion. --Doncram (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm accused of "Avoidance Vandalism" which is apparently, per a definition within wp:Vandalism, about inappropriate removal of AFD, Copyvio, and other negative tags. An opposing view is that negative tagging on this article constitutes "Abuse of tags", per another definition there. Please discuss such accusations in already-existing discussion section  below, where i will comment. --Doncram (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The editor USER:doncram is again further requested not to hat comments. The editor USER:doncram is requested not to or create further sections or commentaries (another type of hatting) which creates the editors own issues of communication. Again, as the editor makes no specific direct policy question in the other sections the same editor should not expect a reply. The editor USER:doncram should not purposefully cross reference different sections.  Other editors are politely requested to make a positive direct contribution or not not make any comment at all.
 * agljones(talk)10:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

For the purposes of a conclusion of the BRD discussion at least for the removal of the tags requires at least one secondary source is required from a third party source for this article.

The policy makes no reference to 'negativity' and the removal of tags is to conceal deletion candidates or avert deletion of content from the article. It is presumed that the issue of deletion candidate is correct with the repeated references to AfD nominations by the editor USER:doncram. The previous warning content directive by editor USER:T. Canens of the 20 June 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive224 [] in in respect to the removal of "Doncram created content." A further warning in respect to "that further creation of articles based on directory-style resource may lead to other sanctions" by the editor User:Barkeep49 on the 14th May 2020.

There is no requirement for a policy editor consensus in this particular Wikpedia policy. The editor User:doncram has previously admitted the primary sources and this article have independent notability issues with this previous edit. There is an issue of communication with the editor User:doncram apparently may be arguing with the editors own consensus when a consensus is not required (?) There is no policy abuse of adding non-content tags and again no mention of policy 'negativity.'  However, there has been an abuse of tags with the removal of policy tags and again the editor USER:doncram has purposefully vandalised in a 57 minute period on the 1st January/2nd January 2020, 8 articles in the Isle of Man network of articles, removing inline citations for article notability in 7 articles and adding inaccurate non verifiable placeholder text to this article.

The editor User:doncram has added inline citations to this article including contact details for the official website and therefore must be aware of the COPYVIO implications of the primary and other sources from a directory-style resource. For editors based in the USA the US act Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1988 or year 2000 may clarify issues for COPYVIO for linking articles that are based on primary sources that are "works in progress." Another editor may suggest another US act for further clarification for editors based in the USA. The issues of COPYVIO linking for sources that are "works in progress" are the same in the host country as they are in the USA. Again, the editor USER:doncram should should not purposefully cross reference different sections in respect to COPYVIO as for Wikipedia the policy issues in respect to uploading original images is different to host copyright issues in regard to "works in progress" and copyright in compilation. The editor USER:doncram has been previously warned by another editor for the use of 'laundry lists' and the same editor should desists from this practice.

For the BRD conclusion it is presumed that this article is not a stand-alone list as the Wikipedia policy descriptor for the title is not included. agljones(talk)12:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In this edit I removed an out-of-place duplication of my introductory/explanatory comment at top of this discussion section, which had been deleted and which I just restored. Don't edit my comments please.  And what??  Someone wants to outlaw referencing other discussion sections???  Well, Agljones and other readers, please discuss copyvio allegations at the separate section for that, where I have already replied to stuff repeated here. --Doncram (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The editor USER:doncram is again requested not to hat comments and not to link separate sections. This BRD discussion is primarily about Independent Notability policy. The COPYVIO is part of the verifiability process and it is inappropriate to move the discussion to another section and link it to a policy in respect to uploading images. The editor again makes no reference to any Wikipedia policy in the other sections. Again, as the editor USER:doncram makes no specific direct policy question in the other sections the same editor may not expect a reply. The primary sources from the directory-style resource are "works in progress" and the COPYVIO issue and is not needed to discuss in an other section.


 * The editor USER:doncram has been aware of COPYVIO issues when accessing and linking the sources for this article and aware of the licensing issues linked to COPYVIO policy. The editor USER:doncram is also aware of COPYVIO issues in respect to the primary sources regarding Registered Building Consent which are also "works in progress" from accessing the sources.   The linked documents are "works in progress" and subject to COPYVIO which is the same in the host country as in the USA.  There is an example of COPYVIO and "works in progress" for source  No 160 with  copyright in compilation.  There is a similar COPYVIO problem with No 117 and for example map extracts are subject to COPYVIO which is the same issue for US Geographical Survey copyright and also HM Ordnance Survey copyright.


 * For No 117 Kates Cottage (which has been previously discussed in this BRD section and no need to create another section), there is no evidence of the building existing before 1869 or even 1885 (there is no obvious economic requirement for the building) and there is an issue of verifiability Verifiability, not truth and Original Research WP:OR  for the inline citation (mistakes in the map coordinates have been previously discussed at this talk:page article of which the editor is aware.) It is not permitted to quote Wikipedia as a source including using a template as a source.


 * The outstanding conclusion for the BRD process is that the whole article requires further sources from at least one secondary source is required from a third party source for this article which includes No 117. (agljones(talk)16:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The editor USER:doncram is further requested not to hat comments and not to link separate sections. The editor USER:doncram is again requested not to delete comments from a talk:page section or create further sections.


 * The arguments by the editor USER:doncram in respect to violating editing policies and practices are completely unpersuasive after the editor has persistently hatted comments in this BRD talk:page discussion and deleted comments of the 17th December 2020 . The editor USER:doncram has received a generalised warning from the editor USER:drimes for editor conduct.


 * Again the editor USER:doncram has in a 57 minute period on the 1st January/2nd January 2020 has proceeded to vandalise 8 articles in the Isle of Man network of articles, deleting inline citations for article notability in 7 articles and adding inaccurate non verifiable placeholder text to this article . The editor USER:doncram has deleted comments from this AfD discussion .  The editor USER:doncram has  repeatedly hat, sectionalise, collapse and redirect comments to other pages for this talk:page discussion, disrupted Wikipedia to make a point with this article and persistently edited against sources for these articles, , . The previous warning content directive by editor USER:T. Canens of the 20 June 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive224 [] in respect to "Doncram created content" requires the same editor to provided a sufficient executive summary to explain why the article is notable and supported by the correct level of inline citations. Content removal consistent with the directive will not be considered to be edit warring, including removing large blocks of non-free copyright text.


 * It is also inappropriate for the editor USER:doncram to link in a separate section an issue of Wikipedia protocol for uploading images with the issue of the linking of COPYVIO material. There is no dispute over the issue of copyright ownership and no reason for a separate section.  Again for editors based in the USA the US act Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1988 or year 2000 (or other) may clarify issues for COPYVIO for linking articles that are based on primary sources that are "works in progress." Another editor may suggest another US act for further clarification for editors based in the USA.


 * For example, in respect to No 117, there is no issue that the application for Registered Building Consent is "works in progress" (not linked due to COPYVIO) which actually includes the registration documents. Again there is no verifiable information that the building No 117 has been built before 1869 or 1870 and Wikipedia does not permit a template to be used as a source . Wikipedia does not permit inaccurate or vague statements as the primary source for No 117 actually gives a different explanation that the building was constructed in the early Nineteenth Century.  It is not permitted analyse, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material from a primary source and the use of the map is inaccurate in this context which outside its original use as a map (the map survey is actually 1867-1868) and should be for the BRD discussion be considered as Original Research WP:OR. The outstanding conclusion for the BRD process is that the whole article requires further sources from at least one secondary source is required from a third party source for this article which includes No 117.  (agljones(talk)11:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In respect to No 117 (previously known as the Keppel Gate Cottage, the 'Shepherds Hut' or 'Tait's Cottage') it is a Wikipedia policy not to introduce inaccurate or vague information.


 * The source for No 117 (not linked due to COPYVIO as "works in progress" and any non-US Government source linked may be subject to COPYVIO due to copyright in compilation or by a source licence i.e. HM Ordnance Survey, Isle of Man Government.) The source for No. 117 is a user generated source. Issues over accuracy have been previously discussed at this BRD discussion and also at this talk:page article discussion.  For information for other editors, the map coordinates on the HM Ordnance Map (1870) may actually show an animal enclosure and not a building.  It is unlikely that a building was constructed in the early nineteenth century as the mountain lands, including the area known at the time as 'the Keppel Gate,'  were owned by John Murray, 4th Duke of Atholl and this may be discussed at this talk:page.


 * Information in respect to the background of construction of the building No 117 can be found in the Registered Building Consent documents or the Isle of Man Eastern Area plan (not linked due to COPYVIO). Also documents can be found at The National Archives (United Kingdom) which may be requested at the  Wikipedia Resource Request.  For the BRD conclusion, the building No 117 is another non-canonical, trivial inclusion and is not significant historical as the executive summary does not explain while the subject is considered to be notabilty which needs to be addressed. Editors may note the that the nearby building the 'Keppel Hotel' (built c. 1885) known as the "Creg-ny-Baa" Hotel is actually older than the building No 117.


 * Wikipedia makes no policy reference to 'negativity.' Other editor may see this as an underlying tacit admission of issues that the article is based completely on user-generated primary sources and placeholder text.(agljones(talk))11:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The editor User:doncram is again asked not create further sections and it is now an editor consensus that part of the discussion regarding No 117 should be transferred to the relevant talk:page.

The source for No. 117 is a user-generated source, self-generated source and self-published document as the prima facie registration document is signed by the Secretary of the Planning Committee. The prima facie registration document for No. 117 is an issue for the BRD section for at least one secondary source is required from a third party source for the article which includes No 117. The prima facie document for No 117 is self-promotional as it is a function of the Department policy (see paragraphs 1 & 2 of the article and sources and the description in the annex for No 117). The document for No 117 only refers to historical issues and not "architectural or historical interest" as required by the registration process. The registration process is self-promotional (see articles Alliance for Building Conservation and registration of Ballie Scott buildings over types and discussion of Department policy) and for No 117 refers to the "Black Hut" (no buildings in the vicinity at the time of registration in 1989), the Bungalow (public convenience and a former Ministry of Defence building) and Sarahs Cottage (not registered ?)

In regard to No 117, the annex is 'placeholder text' and as the views of the Secretary of the Planning Committee should be considered as a primary source which indirectly quotes a primary source. The Annex quotes the primary source incorrectly as the source as 1869 is actually a HM Ordnance Survey Map surveyed 1867-68 and not the County Series of maps published c. 1879 - 1885. The Annex actually refers to the building construction as early nineteenth century and Wikipedia does not permit the inclusion of vague or misleading information such as constructed before "1869." As previously mentioned the structure on the map is probably an animal enclosure as the map coordinates do not match the current building as previously discussed at this talk:page. Any Encyclopaedic content must be verifiable WP:V and it is unlikely that the building was constructed prior to 1869 and no external sources have been found to support this.

The issue/conclusion for the BRD discussion is again that it is Wikipedia policy that again at least one secondary source is required from a third party source is required for the executive summary which is stub article which does not explain why the article is notable (see Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive224 for Doncram stub articles []. )(agljones(talk))12:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For information for other editors if they wish to analyse a source then they can refer to the registration documents for No 117 (Non-US Government documents are subject to COPYVIO and not linked due copyright in compilation) which states that the building was constructed at the start of the nineteenth century and not before 1869.


 * The registration document is a primary source and Wikipedia policy only allows primary sources to be used to make straightforward, descriptive statements and not contradictory inaccurate summaries.


 * It is unfortunately unclear in 1989, which sources the Secretary of the Planning Committee referred to but it may be the HM Ordnance Survey Map and also the Isle of Man Government Public Rights of Way Map. Again, this has been discussed at this talk:page summary  exactly four years ago. The BRD discussion using the same source shows a structure located at this position 54° 12' 38.5" N 4° 28' 34.5" W  which is 75 meters due south of the position of the building described in No 117.  It is probably an animal enclosure.  This may be discussed further at this talk:page which is the editor consensus.  (agljones(talk))11:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is clear that the consensus is that the discussion in respect to No 117 should be moved to this talk:page rather than create further discussions. Wikipedia does not allow for the introduction of factual errors, original research, including the syntheses of  primary source material.  If editors incorrectly use a source, then this may not been seen as a consensus for the use of the source in the same context and may be seen as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.  The burden of proof lies with any editor adding or reverting a source WP:BURDEN. Any encyclopaedic content must be verifiable WP:V and it is unlikely that the building was constructed prior to 1869 and no external sources have been found to support this. The structure on the HM Ordnance Survey Map is probably an animal enclosure  (2nd December 2020) and this can be illustrated by Manx National Heritage with reference 04349 .  The reason for original registration of the building was not due to the age of the building.  This again illustrates the original issue that the executive summary is unclear why the article is notable and does not quote at least one secondary inline citation from a third party source.  agljones(talk20:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The map abstract in the sources for No 117 are clearly undefined. The second map abstract it has not been possible to clearly identify.  The comparison with US Geographical surveys are irrelevant as the maps abstract in the source are based on HM Ordnance Survey Maps.  Issues of map coordinates and accuracy in US Geographical Maps are spurious as maps often contain copyright traps including map coordinates. The map abstract in source No 117 are based on HM Ordnance Survey Maps and the position on the map of 54° 12' 38.5" N 4° 28' 34.5" W is located 6.7 miles from a major United Kingdom map survey triangulation point and there is no issue accuracy. There is no issue of (linear) distortion on the map and other buildings such as St. Lukes Church, Crosby PO and Greeba Towers do not also show any distortion.  The coordinates 54° 12' 38.5" N 4° 28' 34.5" W are actually less than 10 meters from the position shown on Google Maps when actually using the methods proscribed by Wikipedia.


 * Although issues of Original Research do not apply to talk:pages, the use of the first map abstract relative to the second map abstract is tentatively acceptable by Wikipedia in fixing correctly coordinates 54° 12' 38.5" N 4° 28' 34.5" W.  Wikipedia also allows for correcting coordinates which can be obtained from the scale at the bottom of map in regard to example, grid north. In comparison, Wikipedia does not allow in articles the introduction  of inaccurate or vague information which has to be verified. The date "1869" cannot be verified as the two map abstracts are not clearly identified.  The primary source No 117 also clearly refers to the early nineteenth century which is not '1869' and the burden of proof lies with any editor adding or reverting text WP:BURDEN (the sources for the Alliance for Building Conservation suggest that early nineteenth century would be before 1830 which is not '1869').  The editor USER:doncram cannot apply a consensus form an incorrect use of a source and Wikipedia does not permit Confirmation bias or the engagement of a local consensus around the incorrect use of single primary source (as shown by this talk:page discussion) and editors will continue to remove "Doncram created content" as shown by this article. It is also not permitted to quote Wikiepdia as a source or also quote an info-box as a source which actually refers to a "historic area" and the construction of the road (map source 1870).


 * For the purposes of the BRD discussion, any editor may refer the map abstracts to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard, although again there is no issue of linear distortion. agljones(talk11:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability tags etc
Despite my dispute with User:Agljones on another article, I agree with him/her maybe 75% on the tags he/she has recently added to the top of this article. The content clearly goes beyond what is notable. Please also see my remarks from 2018 at the top of this talk page. I also mentioned at the time that the Isle of Man government records appeared not to be 100% reliable, so the "single source" tag is also relevant. It would be helpful to try and reach consensus on these points.

I would mention in passing that I do not intend to provide the requested help on the list of roads, as I consider that the proposed changes are unnecessary and over the top.---Ehrenkater (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)