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

editing

User:Ehrenkater, thank you for contributing to this. Sorry I lost a bunch in a big edit conflict. I partially restored your edits, will continue to go through, though I may have to ask questions on some facts. You sound knowledgeable, glad you're here. --Doncram (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's not edit war, of course. I promise to go through all your edits that I lost. One minor thing is that I set up wikilinks, including for some which will turn out to be minor and maybe/probably not require an article. Many of the wikilinks will need to be revised, to be sensible names, etc. For the moment could we leave the exact wording given in the Isle of Man's register though, and leave them as links? I think it will be obvious how to handle this later, but not just yet. --Doncram (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Ehrenkater, along those lines, I put in some temporary notes like "try George Hotel". Obviously I mean to add the Isle of Man one to that disambiguation page. Can you please leave those notes in place for now. If this is too difficult, I could move this to Draft space or to my User space or something and try to put a lock on this. I would rather cooperate in mainspace, but that only works if we can cooperate, please. --Doncram (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Ehrenkater, please desist. I would welcome your discussing things, but you have not responded at this Talk page. Obviously it is a work in progress. I now prefer to develop it some, and will be happy to invite you back, but I don't want to battle now. --Doncram (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doncram. I have read what you added to your own talk page, and am responding here as you requested.

Yes, I had noticed that you had moved the article back into your own user space, even though you do not own the article, as you seem to think with the expression "invite you back". I have already made a number of comments, both on your talk page and in my edit summaries. I am trying to be constructive, which is why I pointed out that some changes are needed to the draft: preferably (in order not to waste the time of you and others) before you add a lot more inappropriate stuff into the article.

I would also query why you are attempting to create quite a long new article without knowing much about the subject matter.

I repeat that it's not just some but most of these items that will not merit their own new article: neither based on their notability, nor based on the availability of editors to research such articles. And for those items that do, the name of the article will usually be different from what you have attempted to wikilink, so why bother?

It is also undesirable for a new article to rely on a single source, especially when we know that source contains errors, so it is not a good policy to insist on sticking to the exact wording of the source.

Just to point out: the Isle of Man government has to work within a limited budget, and it is not going to be a high priority for them to check and double-check the content of their web page or their internal sources for it.

Please work smarter not harder!----Ehrenkater (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for responding here. I will try not to have too thin a skin about the multiple insults you throw my way. I could comment back with insults about your intelligence or knowledge or lack thereof in various respects, too, but that might not be very productive. Maybe some things you mention are moot or don't need to be discussed out, but I'll try to respond some.

I have now returned this to mainspace, after editing this article a lot more and after editing at many related disambiguation pages, including St. Mary's Church, Christ Church, Woodlands, Foundry (disambiguation), Bridge House and more, which now mention the Isle of Man registered buildings of such names, and now have inbound links to this article. You seemed not to understand what I was trying to accomplish with trying links that might well go to disambiguation pages, existing or needed, but that is moot now.

About the first column, mostly redlinks, I do think that it is best for us to display what seems to be "official" names of buildings as designated by the Isle of Man government, and not second guess them about what they should have named places. This is perhaps elevating to "official" some names that were not really thought out for that purpose by Isle of Man government, but from other experience with historic registries I do think that for the most part this is best, in particular to avoid wp:OR on our part. Some of their names are too common/general and require disambiguation to avoid linking to disambiguation pages or already-existing unrelated wikipedia pages; I have put in, by pipelinking, more narrow names where necessary (e.g. along the lines of using "Christ Church, Laxey" rather than "Christ Church").

Could you please refrain from directly changing what is displayed in the first column, but rather discuss suggested changes here first. I do have decent reasoning for this. If you disagree, please discuss here. I would prefer not to edit war in the article or have to escalate disagreement to wp:ANI or other conflict resolution venues immediately. Please be civil, including having the respect to discuss issues in discussion sections here, a better forum for actual communication, and please don't try to get by with mere edit summaries. --Doncram (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Also while I was previously promising to re-examine each of your previous edits to try to find merit in them, please forgive me as I take that back now. The list-article has been developed a lot now, and quick reactions to its previous form (whether super-wise or ill-considered) aren't terribly important to reconsider now; either something is an issue now or it is not. --Doncram (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

There seem to be several issues, do let's try to address them one by one. --Doncram (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

presentation order

I wonder about re-ordering to sort by registration number, which is approximately same as sorting by date of registration, rather than the current by parish then registration number order. It's a sortable table, so readers can view it either way. --Doncram (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

(copied to here): Re presentation order, I cannot see how it can possibly help the reader to have the index numbers in the article at all, let alone using them to decide the presentation order. This is a low priority article, which very few readers will use, and it should be kept concise. --Ehrenkater (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

About including the index number: Well there are a lot of heritage registers where an assigned number is very prominently used in practice to precisely identify specific landmarks, say in the U.S. where the NRHP reference number is widely used. In some registers like the Los Angeles local register, e.g. List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in Downtown Los Angeles, the number assigned is the order of listing. And that seems to be the case here. The Isle of Man documents use the numbers in an official way, e.g. being titled to be about "Registered Building No. 53" or whatever, so it seems that being able to look up by their number is important. Also it is helpful for matching up, cross-checking, this Wikipedia list vs. the Isle of Man list. Most (or all?) in List of heritage registers include any official numbers. Here maybe the Isle of Man numbers don't look very official and I may be elevating the importance of numbers they didn't themselves perceive as important, but they do refer to them in their documents.

By the way there seems to be no number 52, 224, 231, 235, 236, 243, 253, 254 currently in this list-article, suggesting there were some listed and later delisted or proposed but not accepted, or some other stories. In other heritage register lists, Wikipedia editors often do choose to cover delisted items in a separate section. Also there are two 237s currently... hmm, one of those is a typo by me, Parville should be 235 not 237, i will fix that. Anyhow, these numbers are important for verifiability, i.e. to help us and anyone else ensure a correspondence.

But, I hear you that you don't like the idea of main presentation being in registration number order, and I won't plan to change that. Ordering as the Isle of Man registry presents it, as now, is okay. --Doncram (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

delisting example

Note, number 224 would naturally have been the buildings at 22-24 Victoria Street, in between number 223 (18a-20 Victoria Street) and number 225 (26 Victoria St.) Photos such as [1] show were matching to the ornate style of 26 Victoria St. The registration document for 26 Victoria Street covers them. But Google street view shows their facade was ruined. So I presume this was listed, then later delisted after ruin. --Doncram (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

duplicate links

I reverted an editor's changes which they stated were to remove duplicative links, supported by a policy/guideline about overlinking. That's a big change to try to force all at once without discussion, so I reverted. (This leaves way forward to make smaller changes again which should not be controversial. If you make big controversial changes then non-controversial ones, then the non-controversial ones will likely get reverted too. It would make sense to cooperate making non-controversial changes first.) Please discuss here.

For one thing, this is not anywhere near the top problem with the article, if it is a problem. Development of actual content should take priority over formatting-type issue that could easily be addressed later when this is brought up for Featured List or such.

Secondly, if i recall correctly, the guidance about overlinking is addressing multiple links to same article within general text, and is not about sortable tables. Years ago i discussed this with editors in Featured List article reviews. If linking is not repeated, then sorting the table into different orders brings up unlinked items first, which tends to look bad. I imagine that there are numerous Featured Lists with repeated linking in sortable tables; please do link me to any substantial discussion/guidance if I am really missing stuff here. If necessary we can seek FLC editors' input here.

Also note that I opened discussion about presentation order...if presentation order is changed then the first instances will be different. Easier to address later.

There should be no rush to force edits along these lines in the article now, it can be addressed easily after discussion resolved. --Doncram (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I've copied here the wording at MOS:DUPLINK in full.

"Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.

In glossaries, which are primarily referred to for encyclopedic entries on specific terms rather than read from top to bottom like a regular article, it is usually desirable to repeat links (including to other terms in the glossary) that were not already linked in the same entry (see Template:Glossary link).

Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom. If the list is normal article prose that happens to be formatted as a list, treat it as normal article prose.

Duplicate links in an article can be found using User:Ucucha/duplinks."

I do not believe you can credibly claim that to repeat a link to e.g. Douglas (or another place) a large number of times "significantly aids the reader".

Thanks, I did already check wp:OVERLINKING, which also covers it. As you see MOS:DUPLINK definitely does allow repeated linking in tables; I guess there's room to disagree about what helps the reader. Where I am coming from is much editing on heritage register list articles, mostly within the U.S. NRHP system (e.g. List of RHPs in Syracuse), but in other countries too. Take a U.K. example, Listed buildings in Cardiff. It is wide practice, certainly most common, and in fact I know of no exceptions, for town/region type information to be repeatedly linked in all heritage register list-articles. Browse in List of heritage registers. We could invite editors at WikiProject Historic sites' Talk page wt:HSITES to comment here or to discuss there. Or invite Featured List editors (wt:FLC?). Possibly relevant also would be other Isle of Man list-articles (although maybe if they differ they should be changed too) ... there is List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course which is similar (about places, includes coords, etc.) but the issue does not come up there.

I do think if you get more familiar with existing practice that your opinion will change. Again, though, this cannot be a huge priority here, it is a pretty small technical / formatting matter which could be changed easily later. Actually, along those lines, I suppose I don't really care about this too much. There is a basic principle though, that editors should seek to get to some consensus, and I would argue that the default consensus should be to go with Wikipedia-wide heritage register practice. How about your browsing around and rounding up some others to comment, and I would be willing to go along with a different local consensus if that is a genuine consensus of a a few editors. --Doncram (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Re presentation order, I cannot see how it can possibly help the reader to have the index numbers in the article at all, let alone using them to decide the presentation order. This is a low priority article, which very few readers will use, and it should be kept concise.

I'll respond at #presentation order. --Doncram (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You say: About the first column, mostly redlinks, I do think that it is best for us to display what seems to be "official" names of buildings as designated by the Isle of Man government, and not second guess them about what they should have named places. This is perhaps elevating to "official" some names that were not really thought out for that purpose by Isle of Man government, but from other experience with historic registries I do think that for the most part this is best, in particular to avoid wp:OR on our part. Some of their names are too common/general and require disambiguation to avoid linking to disambiguation pages or already-existing unrelated wikipedia pages; I have put in, by pipelinking, more narrow names where necessary (e.g. along the lines of using "Christ Church, Laxey" rather than "Christ Church").

Agreed, of course these are not official names designated by the government, and there is no need to treat them as such. It is hardly OR to abbreviate or remove duplication of a name. (If in a small number of particular cases there is a concern about OR, it is always possible to add a reference.) To use Christ Church, Laxey as an example (and a fortiori for buildings that are merely designated by their street number!): until such time as it is demonstrated otherwise, there is a presumption that this fails the notability criterion for an article, and therefore a redlink is not required for now.

I'll respond at #first column display. --Doncram (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Re the edit on Castletown and 4 other local authorities which you pointed out that you reverted, let me explain: there are 17 historic parishes on the island, and I think they are all listed in the "parish" column of the article. The 5 others are not parishes, and it is pointless and misleading to create a redirect and then link to it. Castletown, Peel and Ramsey are designated as towns, and Port Erin as a village district. Laxey was until recently also a village district, but is now actually just an electoral ward of Garff, as are Lonan and Maughold. See Local government in the Isle of Man.

You also ask about location information. The 1:50,000 Landranger map of the island is available at https://www.bing.com/maps, and this shows a lot of information, including for instance the location of the Albert Tower. However it unfortunately does not show parishes. (I have a paper version published in 1980 which does.) I also have copies of the Isle of Man 1:25,000 Outdoor Leisure maps, published by the IOM Government and dated 2009, which obviously show even more detail and clarity, including parish boundaries, but I don't think these are available on line. They say that copies can be ordered on line at mapping@dlge.gov.iom, but that may be out of date.----Ehrenkater (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll respond at #local authority areas. --Doncram (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

first column display

Also I reverted a bunch of changes to first column display, many in an edit labelled "Add various notes etc". Actually I rolled this back in the process of rolling back other edits about repeated links, a different issue. Please note that I asked for this to be discussed, above, already, rather than edit-warred about in the article. Please do discuss, please respond to what I said there. Edit summaries are not where real discussion happens. --Doncram (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

(copied to here): You say: About the first column, mostly redlinks, I do think that it is best for us to display what seems to be "official" names of buildings as designated by the Isle of Man government, and not second guess them about what they should have named places. This is perhaps elevating to "official" some names that were not really thought out for that purpose by Isle of Man government, but from other experience with historic registries I do think that for the most part this is best, in particular to avoid wp:OR on our part. Some of their names are too common/general and require disambiguation to avoid linking to disambiguation pages or already-existing unrelated wikipedia pages; I have put in, by pipelinking, more narrow names where necessary (e.g. along the lines of using "Christ Church, Laxey" rather than "Christ Church").

Agreed, of course these are not official names designated by the government, and there is no need to treat them as such. It is hardly OR to abbreviate or remove duplication of a name. (If in a small number of particular cases there is a concern about OR, it is always possible to add a reference.) To use Christ Church, Laxey as an example (and a fortiori for buildings that are merely designated by their street number!): until such time as it is demonstrated otherwise, there is a presumption that this fails the notability criterion for an article, and therefore a redlink is not required for now. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

About what text displays, for the moment I want to keep pretty much exactly to the official listing names. Why do something different, especially if dropping the official registration numbers is under discussion, too. It would be crazy not to keep a close correspondence. Unless there is an actual clear typo where we really know something else was intended. And I suppose we could footnote any such cases.

About having redlinks or not, I agree that for some/many we will eventually want not to show redlinks. Not sure which are which yet, and how to draw the line. For some like Ballaradcliffe House, Kiondroghad Road the registration documents include multiple pages of description and history, and there could be an article. Not sure about Christ Church, Laxey, in particular, about which I just added some info from three sources, although the IoM registration document has very little. It looks like a very charming building designed by an architect who has an article in Wikipedia, was recently renovated, is apparently still in use as a church, seems to me like it could have an article. About Leodest Methodist Chapel, for a different example, it seems to be vacant and rather plain and maybe all that ever will be known about it is that it was a Primitive Methodist church and built in 1835. But I don't know if having this list-article open, and perhaps inviting some local historians or librarians to participate, could maybe bring out some history books and other sources that would enable this, too, to get some serious coverage. It's too soon to tell, for right now, IMO.

But, when/where we do agree that an article is not wanted, then I want to handle it like for "blacklink" items in List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course. E.g. for "Dub Cottage" there, we have no redlink, but there is a redirect set up from Dub Cottage to the row having pic and some info about it, i.e. it redirects to List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course#Dub Cottage. Note for places like Christ Church, Laxey, where the redlink currently shows in Christ Church disambiguation page, we do want to help readers get to either a row having some stuff about it, or to an article, eventually, and leaving it as a redlink for a little while at least is fine and good IMO.

I'd like to focus on which items have the highest need for articles, and proceed with creating them, and perhaps try to involve more editors and historians in that effort. There is expression "redlinks help wikipedia grow"; it is more welcoming to involve people if they see that articles are suggested/wanted, and presumably they will try to choose to create the more important ones. I don't want to turn away others' interest just yet. There is essay wp:REDBLUE about balance for that, though. Ehrenkater, I thought that The Albert Tower was one of the more important ones to create; can you suggest a short list of others? And/or help plug along creating short sourced descriptions, which might help decide which are which. --Doncram (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

local authority areas

What is wrong with the current list-article's links to parishes? This edit got reverted by me, actually in rolling back other stuff, but I am not sure about this. I did think the existing links were working though. --Doncram (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I am upfront inclined to want to make corrections of location information where the main source (the Isle of Man's registry info) is actually factually wrong, while I am upfront dis-inclined to change their chosen registration names (the first column info). For example apparently they misidentify the location of The Albert Tower, per this diff. I would like for the correct location to be described here, with sourcing where different. What source shows the boundary lines which are relevant for the Albert Tower location? Does one or another online mapping service show the local authority area lines? (By the way, for jurisdictions in another country, MapQuest maps is very good for showing town/county boundary lines, which Google Maps does not show. What works here?) Or is there a good PDF map available? --Doncram (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

(copied to here): Re the edit on Castletown and 4 other local authorities which you pointed out that you reverted, let me explain: there are 17 historic parishes on the island, and I think they are all listed in the "parish" column of the article. The 5 others are not parishes, and it is pointless and misleading to create a redirect and then link to it. Castletown, Peel and Ramsey are designated as towns, and Port Erin as a village district. Laxey was until recently also a village district, but is now actually just an electoral ward of Garff, as are Lonan and Maughold. See Local government in the Isle of Man.

You also ask about location information. The 1:50,000 Landranger map of the island is available at https://www.bing.com/maps, and this shows a lot of information, including for instance the location of the Albert Tower. However it unfortunately does not show parishes. (I have a paper version published in 1980 which does.) I also have copies of the Isle of Man 1:25,000 Outdoor Leisure maps, published by the IOM Government and dated 2009, which obviously show even more detail and clarity, including parish boundaries, but I don't think these are available on line. They say that copies can be ordered on line at mapping@dlge.gov.iom, but that may be out of date.----Ehrenkater (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, Ehrenkater, I agree with you completely, i.e. to label the column as being about local authorities rather than parishes (which the source used) and to put in links as you did. And probably the redirects that I set up for a couple "parishes" should be deleted from Wikipedia. I thought it was clever to create and use those, with expectation they could be redirected to different targets if necessary, but it was not. Perhaps we should footnote about Albert Tower's location, that it is stated to be in Ramsay but is not.

I see that Open Street Map has the local authority boundaries! Including showing the Albert Tower's location, and the showing the edges of Port Erin and Port St. Mary. E.g. click on OSM map within the "Map all coordinates" box in the article, and zoom in on any border. Or click on any coordinates, then choose Open Street Map to view them.

Please do go ahead with any of these corrections, and/or I will get around to it eventually. Thank you for your attention to this, and for letting it stay open for a few days while I got more comfortable about it. sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Al changed per User:Ehrenkater's direction. Note about "Laxey (parish)", there is an assertion of Laxey being a parish in infobox in Laxey article, which should be changed to Garff (sheading) i suppose, am not sure about sheading vs. parish coverage. --Doncram (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

too many pictures, and other negative tags

The article was tagged with {{too many photos}} which I just removed, for discussion here. How are their too many pictures? As for all other list-articles in List of heritage registers and almost every other kind of list of places, it is obviously helpful to have a pic for each item, IMO. --Doncram (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed several other negative tags with edit summaries calling for any disputant to open discussion here and explain themselves. Remaining is a general notability tag and a tag about "intricate detail" which links to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Personally I think the overall topic here is obviously notable, and there will not be any general support for deletion of this article, though anyone is welcome to try with an AFD. Also this is hardly an indiscriminate collection of information... like other historic register lists it is a complete collection of officially designated historic sites. There was/is no random selection of historic sites; this is exactly all that are designated by the Isle of Man government. Could anyone else comment please, and perhaps go ahead and remove these last two? --Doncram (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Leodest Methodist Church, which was identified as a farm building in filename and description and Commons category

Nonsense about there being too many pictures. Have reached 35 photos, yay, with addition of my finding a mislabelled pic of Leodest Methodist Church. Whenever an Isle of Man resident or visitor gets interested, it will be easy for them to find and photo many more here, now that there are coordinates for 100 or so. This list-article, like other historic registry list-articles have done, will facilitate more development, more world-wide and local knowledge about these places. I bet that I have virtually visited many historic sites in Isle of Man (and know something about now), that most locals haven't heard of. I know enough to recognize a historic building when I see a mislabelled pic of it, ponder that, ye of little faith. It will only get better. --Doncram (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Andreas Rectory

Is the building at 54.365831°N 4.442509°W / 54.365831; -4.442509 (click on coords, then select Google maps/satellite view to see) the Andreas rectory, as described and mapped in Andreas Rectory registration document? There are no photos. Outline in Google satellite view is somewhat different, as if porches/additions had been stripped off. --Doncram (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not 100% certain, but pretty darn sure those coordinates are correct, and I am putting them into this article. I do welcome correction/refinement. --Doncram (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Agljones request

Hi, User:Agljones, I understand from your comments a year or more ago, and from recent tagging on this article, that you personally don't think that various structures at the RAF Jurby airfield are very important in the grand scheme of things. But they are listed Registered Buildings, so at least some Isle of Man persons think they are worth recognizing and preserving. I offer to you that I agree they probably don't each need a separate article, but IMO they warrant listing in this list-article and these deserve some coverage together in one combination article about the RAF airfield.

For some items, like "Pillbox at Field 211025", on Ballavaran Road, I can figure out exact coordinates and see the structures in Google street view (that one is at54.349793°N 4.524853°W / 54.349793; -4.524853 (Pillbox at Field 211025), you can click on the coords and select Google satellite view then drill in to Streetview). For another example, I can see the outline of the "Jurby Terminal Building" in Google satellite view and am confident about its coordinates and have included them into this list-article.

For another, "Pillbox at Field 214188, Ballamoar", which I think is at 54.352269°N 4.512584°W / 54.352269; -4.512584 (Pillbox at Field 214188, Ballamoar), I can drill down in Google satellite view but am not certain that a surviving structure there is the pillbox. The Isle of Man registration document for that one is at "Pillbox at Field 214188 Ballamoar Jurby Isle of Man" (PDF)..

Could you possibly please see your way to visiting these sites, and/or other Registered Buildings, and being the man on the spot to document their existence or not? It would be really great if you could photograph these and/or others in this list-article and contribute your photos under appropriate license at commons.wikimedia.org. sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

To User:Agljones, it would be nice if you could contribute anything factual like coordinates for a place, or any source about any assertion you make, such as about buildings at RAF Jurby. The discussion section titled "BRD Bold, Revert, Discuss" below, which includes some unsourced assertions about facts, does not appear to have anything actually helpful enough to lead to any change in this article. Too bad, you probably are in a position to contribute, oh well. --Doncram (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

more notable ones needing articles

Which ones are more obviously important and/or have good sourcing available? --Doncram (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Queens Pier

Queens Pier Tram

Queens Pier / Ramsey Pier has good number of photos available in Media related to Ramsey Pier at Wikimedia Commons and some more in Media related to Ramsey, Isle of Man at Wikimedia Commons. --Doncram (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

cliff-top merchants homes along Ballure Road

Notability of Sea Cliffe and others is explained as due to their being part of a group, c.f. Sea Cliff text. These pre-date Ballure Road which was built in 1764, and predate Ramsey Harbor being built (how? meaning breakwaters, piers, what?). These were homes of merchants with private or shared routes down to the beach, for moving trade goods (Sea Cliff's route shared for 1 shilling per year by adjacent houses). These routes were also used for access by anyone to ancient parish church of Maughold and Ballure Chapel. Registration materials share some text. Efficient to discuss together in one article. Include Ballure Inn (pre-1700); Beach Cottage; Sea Cliffe. Also not registered (gone?) is East Cliff? --Doncram (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

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 [2] 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 [3] &[4] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 [5] 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 Wikipedia: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 "#BRD Bold, Revert, Discuss" and the other discussion section named "#BRD; BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" 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 #Negative tagging added and removed September 2018. --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 Wikipedia: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…” [6] and a directory with a random collection of facts not permitted by Wikipedia WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. 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 [[7]]

Users encountering Doncram-created content that is defined in this discussion as unacceptable may delete that content from the article or move it to the talk page for discussion. If simple excision of the problematic content cannot be done in a fashion that results in a coherent article or stub, then the entire article may be moved to the user's space. Content should not be restored to article space until the issues are resolved. Content removal consistent with this directive will not be considered to be edit warring.

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

This is a list of Registered Buildings of the Isle of Man. It includes buildings and structures in the Isle of Man designated by Isle of Man's Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) "as having special architectural or historical interest". Over 250 buildings and structures are listed, and 275 more have been identified as having potential for listing.

Ongoing enforcement and registration of buildings is administered by a Planning and Building Control Directorate, within DEFA, and is guided by a planning policy document on conservation of the historic environment.

DEFA notes that eight of the registered buildings have thatched roofs. Thatching in the Isle of Man include a group of thatched houses at Cregneash Folk Museum. which are not Registered Buildings.

DEFA notes that ten are designed by noted architect Baillie Scott. A number are designed by, or associated with, architect Thomas Brine.

The Alliance for Building Conservation, a consortium of heritage groups on the Isle of Man, was organized in 2014-15 and has advocated for more preservation of buildings. It had concerns in 2015 about a backlog for registration of heritage buildings.

Notes

References

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 [[8]].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 [[9]] 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 [[10]]

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 [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request[[ WP: REREQ. The directive may suggest that is the most appropriate form of action in the noticeboard Archive224#Doncram_NHRP_stubs [[11]]. 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#DIRECTORY. 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#DIRECTORY.

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 [[12]] 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 #communication problems and to #Related historic registries?. 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 #Negative tagging added and removed September 2018 (and December 2018) (and November 2020) 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 [[13]] 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 [14]. 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 Wikipedia: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 [15]. 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 [16]. The editor USER:doncram has deleted comments from this AfD discussion [17]. 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 [18], [19], [20]. The previous warning content directive by editor USER:T. Canens of the 20 June 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive224 [[21]] 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 [22]. 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 [23].

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 [[24]]. )(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 [25] 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 [26] 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 [27] (2nd December 2020) and this can be illustrated by Manx National Heritage with reference 04349 [28]. 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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, although again there is no issue of linear distortion. agljones(talk11:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

communication problems

I inserted a subsection header "communication problems" here. Agljones, it would be great if you would refrain from deleting this subsection header, meant to set aside some discussion about communication.

Anyhow, hmm, it's a bit absurd to blame the fact of discussion not really working upon my occasional tries to use meaningful section titles, in one of numerous sections opened by you, Agljones, titled "BRD" or small variations. With that section title, all of your comments are invalid, right? Because you are not discussing the BRD process, right? How about having discussions on one thing at a time, in discussions labelled properly about each topic to be discussed. Or, well, you can run on about BRD, I guess. Really this is not working for you to communicate anything to anyone. I am trying to comprehend what you want to get across, but I can't.

Another impediment to communication here, Agljones, is your failure to use diffs. You don't understand them, do you? In your latest comment, you refer to at edit 18:42, 19 August 2018. You were the editor of an edit at that time (not me, which you seem to be suggesting, above). You used the term "Registered Building Consent", not me. A diff for that would be this diff. You can compose such a diff by copy-pasting from the URL of the "differenced" versions of pages, and adding "[" before it, then following it by some text to label the diff such as "this diff", then "]". It would be great if you would try to compose a diff yourself. Perhaps you could make your comments more understandable to others.

Again, I really don't understand what you are driving at in your last comments, sorry. --Doncram (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Agljones, I am commenting here in this section titled "communication problems" because this is a separable issue, off-track from the ongoing discussion "Request for comments on Kate's Cottage coverage".

I do appreciate that, in this diff, you just made an effort to comply with my request for you to provide a diff or shut up (because it is a violation of Wikipedia policy/guidelines/practices) to a comment by editor Drmies. You linked to a Talk page section which is still appearing on your Talk page, however, you did not provide a diff. Simply pointing to a current Talk page section is inadequate for this purpose, because it doesn't prove who said what...you could have edited what text appears there, or what appeared before and provides context. Also the Talk page section may be deleted or selectively edited in the future, and what is required is an unchangeable, permanent diff. In this case your Talk page section is actually titled "Copied from Talk:Isle of Man TT" which suggests the possibility that you yourself might have copied it and selectively chose what you wanted to show and not. I don't know if Drmies' edit actually occurred on your Talk page or was on the Isle of Man TT page. It is absolutely your obligation to provide the actual diff so that others can see it in context and know that it is really what was written, and always forever be able to see that. It is not okay for you or anyone else to make serious negative allegations but foist it upon others to try to find the exact diff that is relevant.

This is a really basic thing: could you please please please provide an actual diff to Drmies' edit to your Talk page, or to the Isle of Man TT talk page if that is where it was made, which apparently was at time and date 15:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC).

If you do not understand what a diff is, at this point, or if you don't know how to find one efficiently (e.g. by use of external tools "Find addition/removal" or "Find edits by user" available under Revision history of any page) and if you cannot produce one when the situation requires, then I feel I have to say that it is impossible/unreasonable for other editors to have to deal with you. And it leads me towards requesting a ban or block to prevent you from participating in Wikipedia, on basis that you cannot communicate in the way required in any disagreement. I think bans or blocks that way are common, often as permanent measures rather than for a specified number of days or months or years, although often it is allowed that an editor may demonstrate that they understand and accept the requirement and appeal for return of their editing rights. It is still a big deal for a person to be blocked or banned, and will likely forever be used against you if it happens.

To be clear, right now I am asking you to provide that diff here in this section, to prove you can do it, and to allow this discussion here to be concluded. Please don't just provide the diff somewhere else, leaving others perhaps to look for it and find it. --Doncram (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Agljones, i see now that in two edits you edited in the #Request for comments on Kate's Cottage coverage section. In your edit you provide permalinks to various versions of Talk pages, but you did not provide any diffs. I don't know whether you think you provided the diff I requested (because perhaps you still do not know what a diff is?), or whether it was deliberate on your part to fail to do so. (Call that item 1.) I do take it as deliberate on your part to not reply here where I requested. Instead you are mixing in discussion of communication problems into that section which is supposed to be about Kate's Cottage. Are you being contrary now, and deliberately doing the opposite of anything requested of you? (Call that item 2)

Whatever is your intent, your failure to produce a diff is serious evidence about your inability to participate properly in Wikipedia. For what it's worth, my citing the "time and date 15:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)" is by me seeing that is what follows Drmies signature on your Talk page. But like I explained, in context it is ambiguous whether Drmies edited directly on your page or elsewhere (and then you or someone else copied it over, labelling it a copy). I could myself go and find the specific relevant diffs, but I asked you to do so. Are you not understanding the obligation for you to provide an actual diff that proves something, instead of leaving it to others to do what you should have done? Simply, you are not allowed to make negative allegations without providing relevant evidence in form of diffs.

Also, in those two edits you commit a different violation of guidelines/practices in communication, in that you edit your own comments after they had been replied to, in a way that misconstrues the conversation. It is usually okay to edit your own comment in a discussion if it has not yet been replied to, as if you are just fixing what you are saying. And after a comment has been replied to, it is sometimes okay to strike part or all that you said and to indicate replacement text, perhaps formatted in italics to indicate that it is an addition later, and to sign your own revision with your signature and time-stamp. So that others can follow. In this case, your editing does not indicate there is any change, and you left in the earlier time-stamp. You're not supposed to do that, you are supposed to cooperate in achieving discussion/communication, rather than acting in effect to undermine the following comments by other editors. (call this item 3) This action by you is pretty much equivalent to your directly editing someone else's comments, which you should not do, either.

So now I see three breaches of reasonable communication practices. I suggest that you reply here, and do provide the diff requested. Go and look up what a diff is, if you don't understand. And I would appreciate if you'd acknowledge your further mistakes in communication. And, if no one has further replied within that Kate's Cottage section, I suggest you revert your own two edits. I suggest you take this seriously. --Doncram (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Finch Road location issues

There's a sequence of separate registrations for buildings at 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24 Finch Road, for which the corresponding registration documents include mixed up photos, I am pretty sure. Some, perhaps all, of the buildings are built in same style by same builder in same era; they are a bit hard to tell apart. Photos in registration documents are old, e.g. show vacant lots inbetween some where there are infill buildings now. But it seems possible to figure out which each photo portrays, in terms of which specific location in Google Streetview. However, some of the photos seem to be attached to the wrong documents, because they depict locations in a different order than one sees going down the street. In the list-article up to now I have put in coordinates which match to the photos, and which therefore might be incorrect. It needs to be fixed, with notes about the photo inclusion errors. It would help if any of the buildings actually had street numbers posted. If anyone else has patience to sort it all out, that would be great, or I will get back to it eventually.

By the way, these all should probably be covered in one article, perhaps 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24 Finch Road or 4-24 Finch Road. --Doncram (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually a map with numbering is included in #16's registration, so this can be sorted out, yay. --Doncram (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Santon Parish Church location?

Where is Santon Parish Church, "otherwise known as St. Sanctain's, Arragon Veg Road, in the parish of Santon"? Registration doc for Sandon Parish Church mentions "", and includes photos. At 54.100641°N 4.597560°W / 54.100641; -4.597560 is a building (possibly the church?) seen in Google satellite view near/on Arragon Mooar, Church Road, IM4 1HB, United Kingdom, the address of "John C. Taylor Ltd." The shape of the building looks okay, with a belfry at one end, but the satellite view does not show a graveyard and there is another building or two there which do not appear in the registration doc photos. In Google streetview, there is not imagery for this road, so I can't "drive down" the road and see. But in Google streetview here is a sign for "Arragon Mooar" at end of this road, at its intersection with Old Castletown Road. --Doncram (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I think I figured it out. The source mentions "Saddle Road" in an address, and I find that in Google maps, and then using Google Streetview I can see a church to one side. It appears to be at 54.161003°N 4.507010°W / 54.161003; -4.507010. --Doncram (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not all settled. That points to the building I identified for "Old Kirk Braddan Church, Saddle Road". There is no source document available for this one. If it is a different church (could there be a mistaken duplication in the listings?), then one of the locations is incorrect. Help sorting this out would be appreciated. --Doncram (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Got it, it is at 54.108422°N 4.585653°W / 54.108422; -4.585653. This webpage included a pic and Grid Reference SC311712, and this page connected grid reference to a map. --Doncram (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

correspondence notes

To address:

• typos, minor discrepancies which could be addressed simply by simple edits to the DEFA webpage
• missing registration document(s) and changes to pages included within them.
  • For RB12 "Old Kirk Braddan Church, Saddle Road", Isle of Man government provides registration document for Registered Building No. 11 instead.
  • For RB108, DEFA website does not currently (April 2018) provide online registration documents for "8 Dwellings, numbered 5-9 Charles Street and 1-11 Queen Street", in Peel.
  • And for example amongst the 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24 Finch Road items I believe there are some mistakes in which photos are included with which registration text. Review documents within other series ones too.
• organization "by parish", but not all are parishes, others are local authorities. Choose to reorganize by local authority. Due to amalgamation in Garff, if going by local authority areas, amalgamate Lonan, Laxey and Maughold as Garff (per this suggestion).
• coordinates: These are i think pretty good, given what i had to work with, but i took some small leaps of faith and there must be some small or large errors; it would be great if all could be checked by informed persons. Welcome to adopt & use themselves. Items which Wikipedia editors have not yet found:
  • thatched cottage in Surby
  • RB146 "Thurot Cottage Outbuildings and Gate, Hill Road", i can't see the outbuildings or gate, though did find RB135 Thurot Cottage itself.
• formerly listed items. Please make registration documents available; once notable always notable in Wikipedia; to some extent historic registries elsewhere provide continuing coverage. Relevant, of public interest, in regards to the history itself and to the facts/process of loss of historic resources and deregistration, which happens.
• demolished yet still listed, including RB264 "Royal British Legion Hall, Janet's Corner", appears to have been demolished.
• significantly modified / partly demolished items, e.g. 13 Athol Street where facade lost, e.g. RB45 "Garage, rear of "Clarksons", 1 Parliament Square", clearly modified. What modification documents are required, and could/should these be posted to update the registrations?
• instructions for photographs and documentation (Guidance on Undertaking Historic Building Photographic Surveys): request/require CC by SA copyright release of photos in new submissions.
• Some process for formal additional official documentation, as done eventually in U.S. NRHP system, where original registration documentation is scant. This provides for actual better fulfillment of the RB program mission, e.g. communication of the historic merit of sites, and avoidance of preservation without information. For example, to document what are any known facts, history of RB2 "Leodest Methodist Chapel, Leodest Road".

More later. --Doncram (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

BRD; BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

No 241

{{geodata-check}}

BRD discussion cycle WP:BRD. The following coordinate fixes are needed for Pillbox at Field 214188, Ballamoar, RAF Jurby as templated by Wikipedia.

It is unclear if the building exists (actually a structure described by Wikipedia due to internal modifications WP:GEOROAD) and not a "canonical" listing WP:CSC and fail the process of independent nobility for a linked article WP:N. The coordianates are given for nearby building in the Ballamoar farm estate. —Agljones (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, maybe. Agljones removed coordinates previously in the article, i.e. 54.352269°N 4.512584°W / 54.352269; -4.512584 (Pillbox at Field 214188, Ballamoar (thought to be the location intended)), because they believe them to be incorrect. You could just correct them, instead.

And, um, it is pretty silly to keep using "BRD" or variations as titles of discussion sections in this and other Isle of Man related Talk pages. Whatever they want to communicate, it is not about the BRD process. --Doncram (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it seems that I interpreted the map included in the Isle of Man document for the site incorrectly. Consistent with the maps' usage of red to indicate the place(s) of interest (despite some of the maps being provided only in black and white, but this one is in color), I focused on one red-outlined shape in the map, apparently without noticing there is a different, smaller brighter-red-outlined shape (corresponding to structure at 54.353387°N 4.512758°W / 54.353387; -4.512758 (Pillbox location, corrected) in Google Satellite view). I concur that the second one is the better interpretation and will put that into the article now. Disagreeing about a coordinate in the article does not justify tagging the article overall with big negative tags (which I removed). Hmm, maybe this means that Agljones reviewed every other coordinate, and we can take them all as well confirmed now? Anyhow, thanks for helping get this one datum corrected. --Doncram (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, this is the RAF Jurby location which I asked about, in #Agljones request section above, because it was the one I most questioned, myself. Could have replied there. Thanks again, though, for taking a look at it. --Doncram (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

No 06/242

The editor concerned, either adding or restoring text should check the overall validity of all the map coordinates for the embedded list items before actually making the edit. The map coordinates are actually subject to same method of inline citations as for any other source (including Google Maps and Google Street view, Bing Maps & HM Ordnance Survey etc) WP:CITE. The map coordinates from the inline citations is saliently missing from this reverted edit [29] and fails the process of verification WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. The map coordinates are also missing from the primary, self-published and questionable source (No 06/241) WP:NOTRELIABLE with WP:COPYVIO problems as the issues in the source country are broadly similar to US WP:COPYVIO. The burden of proof lies with any editor either adding of restoring text WP:BURDEN and editors should refer to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, guidelines and other essays for adding text.

Due to the lack of coordinates in these primary self-published sources, the current method of citation may suggest Original Research WP:OR and again synthesis of sources not permitted by Wikipedia WP:SYNTHESIS. Wikipedia describes for clarity that; “The presence of an object on a map is not sufficient by itself to show notability of a subject” and this point can be illustrated by the editor USER:doncram with this edit in respect to Google Maps [30].

Maps should be free of WP:COPYVIO and not be from self-published sources WP:V. Wikipedia describes that, as maps are primary sources WP:PRIMARY they should be used to find details consistent with their original use Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources ( ie No 06/241, No 117) which limits details that can be used. The registration document, again as a primary source, of the 27th November 2006 refers to “…buildings delineated on the plan…” and there are three or four “delineated” section on the plan and a number of other buildings. The process of “delineation” as suggested by the primary source is inconsistent with finding details “consistent” with their “ original” use on the map or abstract, again actually a “self-published” illustration. Wikipedia policy for primary sources is clear;- “ ....Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation....” WP:PRIMARY which is clearly absent from these edits for No 241 and also from No 117 as no comparison has been made with a secondary source WP:ANALYSIS, Wikipedia:No original research.

From the source dated the 27th November 2006, it is completely ambiguous what actual is building 06/241, where it is located and if the building currently exists or has been demolished Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Again, as shown with these edits [31], [32] & [33] in respect to No 117, there are quite obvious problems in the accuracy of the “delineated” section within the primary sources. In respect to 06/No 241, the “delineated” section without coordinates is clearly within the field boundary of the Ballamoar farm estate, whereas as the reverted edit [34] now indicates coordinates for an object within the field boundary of RAF Jurby which cannot be identified on Google Maps or other maps and fails the process of verification WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION (see other 06/No 241 map entries for comparison which actually may be seen by other editors as again Original Research WP:OR).

Summary for BRD. The cited sources, “....must clearly support the material as presented in the article...” (ie No 189, No 06/241) WP:BURDEN. It is not permitted to further summarise from other sources from other linked Wikipedia articles (eg No 117 WP:STICKTOSOURCE) without an existing citation in the linked article WP:SYNTHESIS). It is not permissible to quote Wikipedia as a source WP:COPYWITHIN (eg No 117) or summarize the primary source material other than as Wikipedia describes as; “….descriptive statements of facts….” WP:!TRUTHFINDERS), WP:PRIMARY (eg No 27, No 117, No 160, No 189, No 06/241 & No 264).Agljones (talk)19:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

By "No 06/242", I think you mean item 241.6 in this list-article, which is supported by this source about "Registered Building 06/000241".

Agljones, it is possible that a given structure has been demolished. Honestly i can't really tell if the structure exists in the Google satellite view. There appears to be a hexagonal shape there, perhaps with its roof covered by vegetation, or perhaps the building is gone and there is vegetation in the hexagonal form of the former structure. But since it is a somewhat-protected building, and it is not in a commercially useful spot, i don't understand why anyone would bother to demolish it, so my best guess based on the satellite imagery is that it still is there. You could contribute something positive if you could establish that a demolition has happened, perhaps by your getting an update about it from relevant authorities, or by your visiting the site and taking a photo which could be used as evidence. We are allowed to use photos contributed by ourselves. However, the coordinates which you deleted from the article (and which I have restored (54.353387°N 4.512758°W / 54.353387; -4.512758 (Pillbox at Field 214188, Ballamoar)) point to the location given in the source. I don't comprehend any objection to having them show in the list-article. It is where it is. There is no copyright violation. I can't comprehend your thinking there is a copyright violation!

I also don't understand if you mean to communicate any other objection in all that you wrote. But however much you dislike the Isle of Man's historic structures, or whatever is your motivation, it is not appropriate to tag-bomb the article with negative overall tags, which I removed again.

The repeated tag-bombing is bordering on vandalism on your part, in my opinion. --Doncram (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm copying my reply to Doncram's query about this topic at the Teahouse (I'm also deactivating the {{geodata-check}} template, since it doesn't seem to serve a useful purpose in this instance):

The question of the necessity for, and acceptable means of, sourcing coordinates is rather a vexed one, which has been discussed a number of times in different contexts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates (and I suppose elsewhere). The general consensus of editors seems to be that if Google Maps or some other mapping service clearly shows a feature at a certain location, the coordinates of that location can be given in an article without a need for further sourcing. For listed buildings in Great Britain, for instance, I frequently use the maps included at the bottom of the Historic England online list entries (like this one) to find the relevant location, then find the corresponding location on the Google satellite view in the GeoLocator tool and copy the coordinates into the article. I guess that in some sense this could be considered to constitute original research, but to my mind, and I think in the general opinion of editors, the Historic England page is a sufficient source for establishing the correct location.

In the specific case you're referring to—which I've been following because the OP at Talk:Registered Buildings of the Isle of Man#No 241 used the {{geodata-check}} template, and I monitor the maintenance category Category:Talk pages requiring geodata verification that the template adds—I think that the map included in the registration document, which is given as a reference in the relevant row of the table, is a perfectly adequate source for the coordinates of the structure in question (whether or not it's still in existence). The original poster there seems to be somewhat unreasonable.

—Deor (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The original geo-tag poster was for a quite plainly miss-identified building within the Ballamoar farm estate. There are two issue for No 06/241.2;- first the actual description and notability of the subject, if the building actually exists and second the issue of map coordinates.

The primary source does not contain map coordinates with three or four “delineated” sections which has led to the original miss-identification or show any actual building in the coordinates in the ‘delineated’ area shown by the coordinates in this edit [35] and fails the process of verification WP:V, WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. This can be seen by this new photo of the 'delineated area' in the primary source and there is no building in the 'delineated' area which is heavily over-grown for correct identification and the on the ground GPS cordinates do not match the coordinates on Google Maps.

Wikipedia policy guideline is clear that the primary source has to be interpreted with a secondary source WP:PRIMARY which have to follow the normal process of independent verification WP:V . In the case given by the editor Deor the listing in English Heritage may have a secondary “neutral” independent source for identification. For 06/241.2 there may not be any secondary “neutral” independent source for…….identification, description, clarification or also for article independent notability WP:N.

Although, the editor Deor with this edit [36] has explained a common method of identifying buildings using Heritage England, the same editor has also considered that the method may also be original research WP:OR.

There are obvious problems with all the listing for RAF Jurby site. This includes various issues miss-identification from a set of self-published primary sources (actually an internal department procedure) from an official website that do not match their original reasons for listing in the register Wikipedia:No original research.Agljones (talk20:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess, for providing a photo of a field and hedgerow, though I don't think it proves anything relevant here. The photo is identified as being provided with permission of Ivory Tower inc / Northern Milk Marketing Board, so I take it you found this somewhere, and are not asserting you yourself walked the field and looked for the RAF pillbox structure, including poking into the bushes. The photo is not identified, but I assume you mean it is a photo of a corner of field 214188. It seems quite possible that it could even be a photo of the correct corner of that field, and also that the RAF structure is inside the bushes there.

I don't see any specific assertion that any set of coordinates is wrong, or that there is any descriptive text in the list-article that is wrong. About this item, there is no descriptive text in the list-article to dispute. There is just the title of the Isle of Man listing, i.e. "Pillbox at Field 214188, Ballamoar". Which is indisputably the name of the Isle of Man listing. Okay, nothing to do. --Doncram (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Information for other editors is that it is that the former RAF Jurby Aerodrome has no public access. The issue of an unidentified former “RAF building” in the hedgerows in this edit [37] may be largely irreverent as the hedgerow is north of the field-boundary of 214188 and inside the post-1963 former RAF Jurby aerodrome boundary. There may be at least two, three or more unidentified post-war buildings in the over-grown area in question of the former RAF Jurby airfield. All information on Wikipedia has to be verifiable WP:V rather than based on a “best guess” as ambiguously described by the editor USER:doncram in this edit [38]. Wikipedia policy is that a primary source such as 06/251.2 can only be analysed, evaluated or interpreted with a suitable ‘reliable’ secondary source WP:PRIMARY. This includes the name of the title of notice 06/251.2 which refers only to “buildings” [39] and not to “historic structures” or “historic sites.”

This second original photograph (not copied from another source under copyright;- editors should refer to actually wording of GNU declaration) does not show any building within field boundary of field 214188. The GPS coordinates as shown in this second original photograph for the corner of the field 214188 as shown in the photograph as 54° 21′ 12.14″ North, 4° 30′ 45.78″ West and not 54° 21′ 12.19″ North, 4° 30′ 45.93″ West as shown in these edits [40], [41] and these edits fails the process of verification required by Wikipedia. The burden of proof lies with any editor adding or restoring text to demonstrate verifiability WP:BURDEN with an inline citation from a reliable source WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION which includes the burden of proof with the contributing editor reviewing all the coordinate details with a secondary source.

Information for editors that they may like to consider this article and the note 1 [42] in reference to the GPS issues and using GPS map coordinates in Wikipedia. In comparison, the Ordnance Survey coordinates for the same north-east corner of field 218144 is 54° 21′ 12.4″ North, 4° 30′ 41.50″ West and again these edits [43], [44] fail the process of verification WP:V. This comparison of the original HM Ordnance Survey map with the Ordnance Survey map in the abstract in the source may be tentatively permitted by Wikipedia as it is consistent with each maps original use to locate the relative position in question (for the actual coordinates see below).

Again, the editor User:Deor with this edit [45] has demonstrated a common method of identifying the coordinates of a previously identified building using Heritage England and the same editor has also considered that the method may also be original research WP:OR. The method as shown in these edits [46], [47] has been used to actually try to “best guess” [48] an unknown location of a building. As with other internet sources WP:V, the normal inline citation WP:CITE process also applies to online maps which requires the map origin or cartography description and date the source was accessed which is not recorded in the two edits. This “best guess” may be completely inconsistent with the method as described by the editor User:Deor which in general relates to a building already formally identified and perhaps confirmed or evaluated with a secondary source WP:SECONDARY.

Other (non-Google) internet map resources with similar satellite image overlay show other marks on the ground in different locations including inside field 218144 which may suggest demolished buildings. This includes hexagonal marks on the ground in field 218144, which for example may be a non-directional DF station, VHF ground relay or perhaps a WW2 era pill box at 54° 21′ 11.9″ North, 4° 30′ 44.8″ West which are similar to marks of a former WW2 pillbox at RAF Andreas at 54° 22′ 31.5″ North, 4° 25′ 45.6″ West.

A summary for the BRD process is the name of the entry may refer to field 214188. However, this is from a self-published primary source WP:PRIMARY with overall issues of lack of editorial oversight, WP:COPYVIO problems and accuracy issues in the map abstracts without coordinates (ie again no 117) or problems with the descriptions for many of the RAF Jurby entries, (eg No 238. Jurby Aerodrome Bomb Store, Jurby Industrial Estate which actually shows an area of the post-1963 Jurby Aerodrome in the map abstract and not the industrial estate. [Why ?]: No 239 Jurby Terminal Building, Jurby Industrial Estate (Flight Annex only) [Why ?] Previous flight dispersal and “terminus building(s)” demolished).

This photograph [49] from the RAF Jurby article (from a source which is unclear of the commercial WP:COPYVIO status) shows in the background the northern boundary of field 214188 with the RAF Jurby Aerodrome built in the period 1938-1939. The photograph is labelled as 1942 and there is no building in the location as shown by the primary photograph source in this edit [50] by editor 42.226.189.160. Further photographs of the RAF Jurby Aerodrome, from the immediate post-war period (1945-1950) from Aero-Films (not linked to Wikipedia due to uncertainty of the commercial WP:COPYVIO limitations) do not show any buildings in field 214188.

The conclusion for the BRD process is that the building on 06/241.2 which cannot be correctly identified may be actually a misidentified post-war building in a different position or may have been demolished. If the building is post-war, then this may not qualify as having any “historic interest” compared to the other well defined WW2 era RAF Jurby Aerodrome “Pillboxes” built in the period 1937-1939 or 1942-1945.

This also demonstrates for the BRD process that the registration of buildings is an ‘internal administrative department process’ from a questionable WP:NOTRELIABLE, self-published website WP:SELFPUBLISH rather than being a “….governmental lists of historic sites….” as ambiguously described by the editor USER:doncram with this edit [51]. The various buildings of 06/241 listings that are located on private land (ie a third-party), they have only been registered due to their small internal size which do not normally require planning permission for demolition which demonstrates the ‘internal administrative department process' (refer to signature on documents). In regard to 06/241.2, No 237, No 238, No 239 & No 240 the material is “unduly self-serving” from a self-published website as the department is the owner of the majority of the buildings. WP:ABOUTSELF. Agljones (talk)20:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I did try to read that. I perceive you have general antipathy about Isle of Man historic places, or about the official registry of them, and that may be too bad, but there are no actions to be taken here, as far as I can tell. When I try to read it again, you lose me in the second sentence: "The issue of an unidentified former “RAF building” in the hedgerows in this edit [52]...." To participate in Wikipedia discussions, you need to know what an edit difference is and how to link to one. Please see Help:Diff. What you linked to here is a version of this Talk page, not a specific edit. So I don't know what you are trying to refer to. Your point is to direct attention to something, but you failed. Oh well. --Doncram (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The editor USER:doncram has previously raised the issue of linking edits which is the exact opposite of the current complaint……By repeatedly raising minor or trivial issues in this BRD cycle WP:BRD, the editor USER:doncram may be seen by other editors as introducing spurious objections and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. This has previously led to a generalised warning for talk;page behaviour from another uninvolved editor.

Due to the editor USER:doncram making further ambiguous comments to 'heritage locations,' this may suggest that the same editor USER:doncram has been able to locate the linked edits or files and overall understood the comments and the summary required by the BRD cycle WP:BRD for 06/241.02.

The editor USER:doncram should direct the comments directly to the talk:page / BRD cycle and as the editor has previously suggested and not introduce ambiguous supplementary points, considering that the editor USER:doncram has previously has made historic contributions in respect to what is acceptable by Wikipedia as coordinate accuracy on other talk:pages (?) If the editor User:doncram with edit 16:23, 4 August 2018 does not understand the primary source 06/241.02 or the points made by user:Deor in respect to either coordinate accuracy or primary sources then source 06/241.02 is a breach of the Wikipedia:No original research policy as the burden of proof lies with any editor either adding or restoring material WP:BURDEN.

Unless the ambiguous reference to historic places by the editor USER:doncram is a tacit admission that the source 06/241.02 (as an ‘internal administrative procedure’ from an official, self-serving website for a non-historic post-1963 building ) requires to be substituted with a reference from a 'neutral' secondary source to be added to the article for the purposes of verification, interpretation and confirmation as saliently required by the Wikipedia guidelines WP:V, WP:PRIMARY  ? Also, for the BRD cycle summary, that the editor USER:doncram would also explain the meaning of “registered building consent” for purposes of verification WP:V in the source title quoted as “The Registered Buildings Regulations 2005” for 06/241.02, relative to the overtly ambiguous comments in respect to 'heritage locations' ? Agljones (talk)18:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

VHF radio / non-directional DF radio mast RAF Jurby

06/241.2 Post-1963 (?) non-“heritage building” (?) which is only listed due to its small size, it does not require planning permission to be demolished: it is unclear if the building exists as it does not appear on other lists of “registered” “buildings.” Contemporary Air Ministry photographs from the period 1937-1945 do not show a building in field 214188 and this photo may show a VHF radio / non-directional DF radio mast in the same field which would have required a nearby building with a power source as a ground station which may or may not account for the marks on the ground as discussed [this edit] of 20:24, 28 July 2018.

The summary for the BRD cycle is that any set of remaining or residual marks on the ground on Google Earth or Maps should not be considered automatically to be 06/241.2 and other hexangular marks on the ground may have also been a former electrical ground station, store or machine shop, revetment for the RAF Jurby station fire engine and crew or light AA establishment, which may suggest Original Research WP:OR. Or…...just a dummy pillbox (common RAF practice by painting marks on the ground.) Considering that it is in a position that it would be clipped by an aircraft wing (other known pillboxes are positioned away from taxi-ways) and also in a fire-zone blind-spot from the other known defined aerodrome defences and buildings which may suggest limited use as a contemporary WW2 RAF Jurby structure. Pillboxes are also very vulnerable to damage by light anti-tank weapons as shown by the airborne landings on Crete in 1942 and …….in April 1945, a Shorts Sunderland III flying-boat crashed landed at RAF Jurby near to field 214188 and after an engine fire, submarine depth-charges exploded badly damaging many RAF Jurby station buildings including the distant aircraft hangers.Agljones(talk)20:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting perhaps. A tag calling for verification of the Registered Building status of "Pillbox at Field 214188, Ballamoar" was added, and I have removed it. See the Isle of Man's webpage on its Registered Buildings, cited in this article and Talk page. There is no doubt that it is listed. --Doncram (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

copyvio allegations?

Copyright infringement and the GNU Free Documentation License process is a very serious issue for Wikipedia. The uploaded image has embedded digital Metadata source details from a digital camera which confirms that it is an original image rather than copied from another source. The editor User:doncram and another editor have previously commented on these embedded Metadata digital camera source details in the uploaded form to confirm that they are original images.

If the editor User:doncram has specific evidence of infringement of copyright in respect to any image copied from the internet or other source the editor should present this evidence as shown by this edit [53]. Speculating in a general fashion by the editor User:doncram and repeatedly raising trivial and spurious objections, is showing to other editors and administrators that the editor USER:doncram may be seen as using stonewalling tactics, bad faith editing and gaming the system, particularly as the whole article is based on primary sources only.

Again, the editor USER:doncram has received a generalised warning for use of ‘laundry lists’ and talk:page behaviour from an uninvolved editor and a further second generalised warning for presenting the lack of any evidence from the same uninvolved editor. Agljones (talk)19:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

what the hell are you trying to say? Are you saying there are photos in this article which have copyright violations? I have no idea what you are trying to get at. Nothing to do here, as far as I can tell. —Doncram (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, are you trying to attack and discredit me, by referencing something about laundry? And because you think I am accusing you of copyright violation? You think Incorrectly. I see in your last edit you changed photos here in this talk page, to one that has nothing about any milk board, perhaps to try to clarify you did walk that field (I am guessing)? Okay, please just say, did you walk that field? If you did, you find an RAF structure? Or do you think none survives? Just say, if that is what you are trying to imply.—Doncram (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Agljones has again just now asserted, above, more copyvio allegations, including

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).

Umm, I simply don't follow what you are trying to get at, with respect to "work in progress". There is nothing wrong with citing Isle of Man's documents registratering of historic sites, as far as I know. I see no sentence or item or anything that is at all interpretable as a copyright violation. There is a copyvio noticeboard which can consider specific allegations of copyvio issues, which would garner "expert" judgments, and Agljones, you are welcome to raise an issue there. However I advise you to identify some specific text which you think is copyvio in any allegation you make there. --Doncram (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

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:

• 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)

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)

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

Related historic registries?

There are confusing statements within some of the above discussion sections which seem to assert that there are other historic registries which should be covered, perhaps as many as 6.

I already understand that Registered buildings are covered at Isle of Man government's webpage about its approximately 250 Registered Buildings.

I already understand that Conservation Areas are covered at Isle of Man's webpage about its 20 Conservation Areas, which appear to be like historic districts in other countries. Conservation Areas each include numerous individually listed Registered Buildings, plus other buildings.

What are registries 3, 4, 5, and 6, and, especially, what are corresponding sources? --Doncram (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am now inclined to expand and retitle this list-article to be about "Registered Buildings and Conservations Areas of the Isle of Man", and to add in discussion of the 20 "Conservation Areas" which are equivalent to historic districts in other countries. Probably will cover them in a first section to be inserted, before the section on registered buildings, on basis that they are "bigger" / "more important" items.

User:Agljones, i would appreciate if you would clarify what other historic registries or similar official lists that you seemed to suggest existed, which should possibly also be mentioned or included. --Doncram (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Violations of Wikipedia editing policies, guidelines, practices

In a number of edits here on the talk page and/or in the article, User:Agljones has, in my view, violated a number of formal Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or violated common and sensible editing practices. For the most part I have overlooked these, in interest of simply allowing / trying to facilitate genuine discussion on substance. However, this is also disruptive, and I am about fed up. Just now, I reverted their last edit, which for a second time deleted/moved material added by myself. Agljones, don't do that. If you want to re-enter your other comment within your edit (more about Kate's Cottage, a perennial favorite for dispute), go ahead. But if you delete or move my material again, I expect you will be reverted again by myself or another, and I am also inclined towards proceeding with dispute resolution procedures, likely a wp:ANI proceeding calling for you to be blocked or banned from editing here or in Wikipedia in general. --Doncram (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for comments on Kate's Cottage coverage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Editor Agljones has repeatedly disputed the brief and noncontroversial (as far as I can tell) coverage in this list article about Kate's Cottage. In this edit just now they again removed the content "Cottage built by 1869." which was supported by reference (which they left in) to ""Registered Building No. 117" (PDF). With photo."

Agljones, I appreciate that your edit did not mix in many different changes so that this specific, manageable topic can be discussed here in this focused discussion section I have just opened. To others, I think Agljones has commented about Kate's Cottage in the midst of one or more long posts in unfocussed discussion sections above, and at Talk:Keppel Gate, Isle of Man, and at Talk:Kate's Cottage.

Agljones' edit summary is "The inline citation does not support edit (988824400). See talk:page discussion No 117. Use of linked COPYVIO user-generated source. Wikipedia does not permit the use of Primary Sources in this context or introduce vague or inaccurate information.)". But, Agljones, the source does specifically support the statement: the source reports that the place appeared on maps from 1869 on. The place (all or part of it) must have been built by 1869 then. The statement is supported by the source and is not "inaccurate", nor is it "vague". If you have alternative substantive suggested text supported by the given source or by other reliable source, now would be the time to suggest it. The statement is not copied from the source, so it is inconceivable that it represents is a copyright violation. And, primary sources can be used in Wikipedia "with care" per wp:PRIMARY, as was done here. Agljones is fully aware of all of these factors in general and specifically in reference to Kate's Cottage from many many many previous discussions.

Agljones, will you abide by consensus that may be established here? Others, would you please comment narrowly about suitable coverage for Kate's Cottage in this list-article? --Doncram (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

My first thought was why is this not being discussed in Kate's Cottage, Isle of Man. This is the primary article on the subject any issues should be discussed there, not in a big list article. I see nothing wrong in using a official government document as the source for this date nor do I think the source should be dis-allowed as a WP:Primary Source. It's not a primary source, that would be the 1860 map. This would be a secondary source citing the primary source. It's not a self-published or user-generated source either, it's not put forth by the owner of the cottage to promote it in any way, it's a government document stating a non-controversial fact. I have added the ref to Kate's Cottage, Isle of Man and it should go back here. MB 16:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

MB - this was introduced to Kate's Cottage by myself during 2018 (in this diff) and you can see that Agljones systematically attacked the article afterwards (with only one minor change in between), specifically deleting the infobox parameter with ref, and also other content including the image locations, the latter being was repeated at many articles. This here is just the tip-of-the-iceberg of massive WP:OWNershsip issues going back to my first involvement in May 2014, causing me to abandon the topic until 2015, and has increased in severity since 2017. Per the offer (where Agljones followed me to Commons) seen in this diff, you are welcome to DM me for further info but please note well the caveat which should not be considered trivial. Also note my sign-off "I am about finished with Wikipe/media, but this nomination is the prompt I needed to return", which still applies - I have no time presently to progress wider matters against this spurious wikilawyering and continued disruption, but will lurk to accumulate the continued bad faith wikihostility, as I find it to be both pathetic and amusing. Also note that the OWNership extended to the image file description, and was picked up by a Commons admin at c:User talk:Agljones#Wikpedia vs. Commons. Thx.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The editor USER:Rocknrollmancer has previously received a formal warning by an uninvolved editor User:Drmies for using “laundry lists” and also warned about unnecessary Single purpose Account (SPA) claims and tagging articles with unnecessary Conflict of Interests (COI) claims due only to editor disagreement. A single issue 'laundry list' or double issue 'laundry list' is still a “Laundry List” and repeating the claims or making new claims may be seen as 'supermarket shopping' by other editors. Editors should not use talk:pages as forum pages, refrain from hat notes or create further sections (a hat note in another form.) agljones(talk)11:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it matters, Agljones, but in dozens of disagreements over the years it is traditional for you to try to discredit me, not Rocknrollmancer, about User:Drmies having once (in an unrelated, non-Isle of Man matter) saying something generic about "laundry lists" not being desirable. Long ago, you might have actually presented a diff to support the accusation against me, but really please let's not bother. Agljones is maybe right to bring up the idea of hatting comments, which in Wikipedia practice is sometimes useful in editors dealing with off-topic rants on Talk pages. Indeed I think an uninvolved editor would be inclined to hat both of the last two comments and this partial response by me, as off-topic to the narrow question of this request for comments. All readers, please ignore but don't edit or hat Agljones or Rocknrollmancer or my comments that are off-topic, else this discussion section too will get bombed with far more off-topic stuff. Instead, again, what should this list-article say about Kate's Cottage? --Doncram (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

So far, by my tally, MB ("it should go back") and Rocknrollmancer (the phrase "was introduced to Kate's Cottage by myself during 2018") have spoken in support of restoring the brief phrase about Kate's Cottage, and I support that too, and Agljones has not spoken either way. --Doncram (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The formal warning to the editor USER:Rocknrollmancer was in respect to a substantial related Isle of Man article matter. The editor User:doncram commented extensively on the same substantive Isle of Man article matter and then received a generalised warning from the same editor User:Drmies. There is an connection with the warning, as the editor USER:Rocknrollmancer used a source which the same editor considers to be substantially biased and introduced placeholder text and commercial styled advertising from the same source. The previous comments are relevant as the USER:doncram at the time was under permanent probation and has recently been warned about creating directory styled articles. The editor USER:doncram has also repeatedly been blocked for hat notes and hat comments.

Wikipedia policy is specific that an inline citation has to support the material directly and the burden of proof lies with the editor either adding or reverting text WP:V, WP:BURDEN. The policies does not allow for trying to determine an editor consensus for text from a source that cannot be verified. The editor consensus is actually that issues should be transferred to the appropriate talk:page article. Another editor has admitted to using the same placeholder text from a generalised source which the editor previously considered to be unreliable (editors may refer to this talk:page discussion about the same issue). In general, directory style articles should not have comments. In this article, it has introduced substantial rambling commentaries, which are inaccurate, vague, time-sensitive/out-of-date. The comments are also non-encyclopaedic with issues of Original Research WP:OR (eg No 27) which are out of context with the initial registration, the executive summary and applications for Registered Building Consent (ie No 117). This is also an extensive criticism of the US NRHP articles which fundamentally does not explain the connection between the listings and the under-lying planning functions.

For this article and the issues of article notability, the use of secondary sources that are independent of the source and the stub executive summary can be found at this discussion. agljones(talk) 17:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I have never received ANY warning at all from Drmies, or anyone else of consequence; actually only now-blocked 72bikers and (one of) a (range) series of American IP addresses, also blocked at one time, spring to mind. I surmise that Drmies (un-pinged), being WP:INVOLVED, has wisely de facto/informally recused his or herself long ago.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, Agljones, I think you have not given any suggestion for alternative text, nor have you specifically given any objection to the text you removed. You do have generalized complaints relating to past stuff, I guess, whether or not you or I or Rocknrollmancer recall correctly about any of that (though I think Rocknrollmancer is correct). Besides the fact that you have provided no diffs or other actual evidence that anyone uninvolved could review, those generalized complaints are simply not relevant IMO. So, I think the consensus here is support for restoring the text which you removed, and there is no actual opposition, not even from you as far as I can tell. Can you please accept that? --Doncram (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The editor User:doncram is requested not to create further sections which may be considered actually part of the current BRD discussion in this section . The editor USER:doncram is asked not to use talk:pages as a forum or team-tag with other editors Wikipedia:TAGTEAM which may be seen as Wikipedia:Meat puppetry. Editors are requested not to use the edit summary as an extension of the talk:page discussion.

It is now presumed that the editor USER:Rocknrollmancer has now read, accepted and now formally acknowledged the comments that editors may consider as a warning from USER:Drmies from this talk:page discussion [54] 17 March 2017 (UTC) and this further talk:page section of 17 March 2017 (UTC) by the same editor [55]. The editor User:doncram is aware of both talk:page posting after writing a 864 word review [56] on the the same talk:page and confirmed that the editor User:doncram had been "pinged" by the editor User:Drmies on the same day, the 17th March 2017. The editor User:Drmies replied to the comments made by the User:doncram on the same talk:page section of the editor USER:Rocknrollmancer with two comments [57], [58] which may be considered that the editor USER:doncram had received a very generalised editor warning on the 17 March 2017 (UTC).

There is no real issue of communication as it appears that the editor User:doncram is now able to read Wikipedia diffs (actually not a policy but an editor courtesy) and for some reason able to post the correct end user time date-stamp in the edit below [59] (?) There is again no issue of communication if editors do not refer to any Wikipedia policy or refer to any direct article issue. Editors that create further sections are like to attract off-topic comments and cause subjects to become confused and broken-up. The editor consensus is actually that the relevant discussion should be transferred to this article talk:page. There is already an on-going BRD discussion for this article.This discussion is now closed. agljones(talk)10:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC) 11:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC) agljones(talk)10:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 15:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

By "This discussion is now closed", do you mean that you think you have proven your case against including the short text? Or do you mean that you agree with the consensus that the text is reasonable? You are not clear, you don't actually say! Accusing others of tag-teaming is off-topic. Your restatement of allegations about a supposed warning is off-topic, I am sure, and further it is a violation of Wikipedia policy/guidelines/practice for you to make negative allegations without evidence ... please provide a diff to whatever that warning is, or please shut up about it.

I see that in your edit at 12:01 of a section above that you state "For information for other editors if they wish to analyse a source then they can refer to the registration documents for No 117 (not linked due to COPYVIO) which states that the building was constructed at the start of the ninetieth [sic] century and not before 1869."

By "the registration documents for No 117" you mean this document, the one used as reference in this list-article, right? It is simply not a copyright violation to link to a document, any document. If you mean a different document, please please please provide a link to it, so that I/we can understand you. This document, anyhow, states the building appeared on maps in 1869, so it follows that it was built before 1869. It does not include a statement that the building was constructed at the start of the nineteenth century.

But suppose it did say that. You seem to imply there is a contradiction, but now I wonder you may have a simple misunderstanding of what the nineteenth century is? The 19th century is the 1800s; it is not the 1900s. At the start of the 1800s is in fact before 1869! So at least it can be said that it was built before 1869. If you could provide a different source that identifies a more specific year or year-range, that would be great, but you have to provide a link to it, or provide directions so that others can access it in some other way (even if we have to request a hard copy from some government office, or whatever), or it cannot be used.

Agljones, I am honestly trying to understand your perspective. Please help. --Doncram (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I call for any last comments to be given promptly, otherwise I plan myself to close this discussion soon with summary that the consensus is the content is to be restored. If there actually was explicit disagreement with reasons expressed that actually caused there to be doubt about what is the consensus (generally supposed to be based upon relative strength of arguments, not just number of "!votes") then perhaps I would choose to use the available service (upon request at wp:AN i think) to get an uninvolved administrator to close this. But here, given 3 participants apparently in favor of the proposal, and one participant perhaps not supporting that but seeming not to oppose it, either, it seems unnecessary/inappropriate to call for help that way. --Doncram (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I will further acknowledge that editor User:Agljones seems to be obtusely (in my opinion) resisting discussion here in this section, while indirectly partially responding to me by this edit elsewhere on this page at 20:01, 7 December 2020. In that edit they direct attention to a different webpage and discussion relating to this geographic location as viewed in Google maps. I believe they are pretty much not willing to "fully" discuss the issue of this discussion section in this discussion section, despite the fact that they have commented in this discussion section which would seem to indicate acceptance of this discussion section, perhaps in order to reserve right to dispute the result of discussion here. About that specific geographic location, which points to an exact spot near to, but not exactly focussed upon Kate's Cottage, I believe they are speculating it was officially the exact location of, say, an animal enclosure, despite no evidence of an animal enclosure ever existing there (it is in a field near Kate's Cottage, instead). And I believe their reasoning is that because some source gave those coordinates as the location of Kate's Cottage, that means that all previous information about Kate's Cottage is invalid. However, I also believe that Agljones simply has little experience with reliability of coordinates information, and is mistaken in thinking that old/historical attempts to provide exact coordinates for a place like Kate's Cottage would have to agree with modern GIS coordinates. I and many many many other editors of articles about historic sites are familiar with coordinates issues as reflected by advice for editors for U.S. National Register of Historic Places sites located at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Style_guide#Coordinates. It is a commonplace among historic sites editors (although I rather expect Agljones does not know anything about this) that coordinates given historically as the location for a place are often "wrong". Even coordinates which have very carefully been measured by a conscientious government agent, based on where the place shows on the very best available topographic maps, turn out to be "wrong" later, because the topographic maps turn out to be "wrong" relative to modern exact systems of mapping (such as provided by Google maps). For example, in the U.S. there was a revision of all mapping coordinates originally measured by the North American Datum of 1927 which later needed to be restated in terms of the World Geodetic System 84 which applies to United States and most of the world. The difference within the U.S. ranges up to 100 yards or more, depending on location in the U.S. I believe that Agljones perceives a discrepancy between the coordinates at one time asserted to be the location of Kate's Cottage, vs. its apparent "correct" coordinates in modern GIS systems, and then erroneously concludes that textual reports about Kate's Cottage in the past are invalid because they must be about a different, hypothetical, no-longer-extant building at the (wrong) coordinates. IMO, of course the textual info about Kate's Cottage is in fact about Kate's Cottage.

Next steps are, IMO, to close this discussion because there is no disagreement here, and further to carry over the results from here to Kate's Cottage, Isle of Man and its Talk page. Sure, both User:MB and User:Agljones would seem to have somewhat preferred for this discussion to have occurred at Talk:Kate's Cottage, Isle of Man instead, but they both are fully aware of this discussion here and have participated here, and it simply is not "wrong" to have discussion here. In this edit there, I give notice to all editors there (really just Agljones and myself) that this discussion is happening here. Everyone possibly interested has been advised that if there is a consensus here, it will apply to coverage about Kate's Cottage both in this list-article and in its separate article. I personally think it is better for the discussion to happen here, because it has higher viewership and is where the issue actually arose from Agljones' edit removing simple, factual text here. --Doncram (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I will acknowledge there has been this further statement elsewhere by Agljones, about which I have two things to say. One, it is not here in this discussion. Two, I myself am unwilling to try to restate some part of it into any argument against the consensus of this discussion, because a) I personally think there is no merit in whatever argument could potentially be contrived out of the incoherent complaints and non-factual assertions there, and b) I don't want to encourage Agljones to think they can legitimately communicate in a discussion by not participating in the discussion, or to think they can "win" a dispute somehow by their being cute or clever or whatever they might think they are being by not stating clear and direct arguments ... I suspect they think that they have "correct" or "winning" arguments and evidence that they are waiting to articulate at some later date, while I think they do not have any legitimate argument or supporting evidence that would stand up to review if it were actually directly stated.

Anyhow, now, in my opinion, this discussion is closed... the consensus is to return the simple text. Which has not actually been disputed. --Doncram (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In this edit with edit summary "There is no evidence of building identified as No 117 (Kates Cottage) being built or occupied during the period 1800-1899", Agljones removed the true, undisputed simple text. Agljones has stated elsewhere on this page or on Talk:Kate's Cottage that it was built in the early 19th century. I find the removal after discussion went completely the opposite way to be disingenuous, obtuse, etc.. --Doncram (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

As I've stated elsewhere, Agljones introduced the date of 1870 (build) in this change, 29 March 2015 and 11 minutes later moved the pagename to manipulate search engines (admitted) without any need for disambiguation: "Agljones moved page Kate's Cottage to Kate's Cottage, Isle of Man: Better description of page (also for Google search)". As of this revision (permalink) dated 15 June 2019 (before Agljones' major revision on 18 July 2020), the prose still carried Agljones' editorial comment of "The typical nineteenth century small stone-walled cottage..." which can be seen in the initial upload dated 4 September 2008.

Doncram the BBC commentator who allegedly was part of the Tate's/Kate's name corruption sequence is quoted elsewhere as "Mr H. Cowin" in 1939; this cannot be included into the main article as the source is a copyvio link.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:33, 18 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)