User talk:ContribUnit

License information needed for File:Šotimaa11 2teisip (20).jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Šotimaa11 2teisip (20).jpeg. However, we need to make sure a license is correctly displayed before it is okay to use on Wikipedia.

Please click here and do the following:

Choose the appropriate license template: it needs to be a free license, in the public domain, or have a non-free use rationale. If you need help, you may ask at the media copyright questions page.
Paste in the template code, and save the page.

If you follow these steps, your image can help enhance Wikipedia. Thank you for your contribution! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert at Carter-Campbell of Possil

Please engage in the discussion on Talk:Carter-Campbell of Possil. The content of that page is problematic. It does not suffice to say that it could be improved: what is required is concrete evidence that the issues can be addressed. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to your further revert, the talk page of the page in question is the appropriate forum for discussion. There is a history going back to 2009 of problems raised with the content, and it should be addressed. The talk page of the article is where other editors will expect alerts. Please refer to Wikipedia:Edit warring for indications of how you can expect this type of dispute to be viewed. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt response. I totally agree with you that the page needs updating and has done since 2009 as there appear to have been no major edits since then. However, from viewing the edit history, it seems that you made the edits in haste and as a result have rashly removed 80% of the content. I think it would be more productive to leave the material in place for the moment so that editors have at least some grounding on which to build. I certainly agree that much of the content you removed was not close to ideal but there is undoubtedly valuable material in there which should be kept. I hope you can understand my perspective on this and would request that in our future edits we could work constructively together to alter, update and improve the material. Thanks.ContribUnit (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I contest the word "rash". I do not share your perspective: a time scale of four years in which to make improvements is generous. I have made a point of detailed maintenance tagging on the page, to flag up some of the troubles.

I was led to the page by a single reference, noted on the talk page there, which I could not check out despite quite serious efforts. I am constantly involved with the Dictionary of National Biography here, and in terms of the original source text on Wikisource, and in its updated online version. If I can't find out what the reference intended actually is, then I think the general reader has little chance. If this sample is representative of the standard of referencing on the page, then the list of references, though superficially impressive, has to be counted as substandard for all Wikipedia purposes. And that includes establishing the notability of Carter-Campbell of Possil.

Let me be clear: the article can be deleted. The dispute over its content can be taken to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I am not in the habit of reverting, or being reverted, here. The correct location for the discussion of the improvement of the content of any article is its talk page.

The issues with the article having been laid out for you in this fashion, I shall give you a reasonable period in which to respond appropriately, and then move forward.

Fundamentally, I do not currently see that the article is supported by enough independent, third-party sources that check out to warrant its inclusion in Wikipedia. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]