Talk:Dwarfie Stane

Mounsey

Discussion commenced on my talk page where I stated that I had removed some material re Major Mounsey on this article for two reasons. First of all, no reference was provided and secondly, the information seemed to me to be essentially about Mounsey rather then the Stone itself. I suggested that it may well be that a new article about Mounsey is in order.

The uncited information has simply been replaced and I am minded to remove it again, or perhaps modify it so that includes whatever references might come easily to hand. Comments welcome. Ben MacDui 18:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah we've moved here. I created William H. Mounsey to solve this one. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Mounsey

I don't understand what you mean with "no reference was provided". Of course I know the meaning of the word, but what is it exactly? I wrote you about google and the Hessim--Mounsey Family, but that is not what you meant, I suppose. Apologies! Lex Ritman85.145.185.206 (talk) ==18:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ritman reference

I removed the Lex Ritman reference because it was added by the author. If you look at Romeinsekeizer (talk · contribs) you will see that he is a single purpose author whose sole contributions to Wikipedia are adding his own works. Such blatant self-promotion has no place on Wikipedia. --Bob Re-born (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether I agree with you or not, the fact is that I replaced the reference because it looks to me like reasonable verification of a fact from a (presumably) reliable source. I don't have the book, but whatever your view of the editor concerned, the issue for me is whether or not it is a valid reference. Do you have any objection to it other than the COI involved? Ben MacDui 14:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That is my chief objection, yes. If it had been added by somebody other than the author then I could possibly accept it because that person had made a judgement on its value as a reliable source. But when it is added by the author (to this and many other articles) it has to be treated with a high degree of suspicion. Removing it serves Wikipedia better than leaving it in place in my opinion. --Bob Re-born (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue for me is not who put it there but the reliability of the source. I have done some google searching and:

• The National Library of the Netherlands is quite happy to list Ritman, but
• I can't find any independent verification of the publisher "Antonius Pius" other than listings involving Lex Ritman himself.
• Nor can I find an independent review of any book by this publisher in English or Dutch - although the search is largely confounded by hits for the Roman Emperor.

This may then be a vanity publication of some kind, which certainly squares with the COI issue. I am content to let this lie until something that confirms that the book is a genuine RS turns up. Regards, Ben MacDui 14:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dwarfie Stane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120529125526/http://www.scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/search_item/index.php?service=RCAHMS&id=1597 to http://www.scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/search_item/index.php?service=RCAHMS&id=1597

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)