Chrisladds
Welcome!
editHi Chrisladds! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
A few tips
editHello, Chrisladds, and welcome to Wikipedia. I stumbled upon your edits on Calderwood, East Kilbride and had a few tips for you. You appear to have done 17 edits in succession, which seems to be more time consuming than anything else. Wouldn't it be a bit easier to perhaps group some of the edits together, for instance, changing the wording for more than one word at a time? Also, it is very nice of you to leave such detailed edit summaries, but they aren't always necessary. You don't have to make them so long, especially when they are all so similar. You can write something more simple, such as, "fixed wording" or "restored previous phrasing." It will take a lot less time and won't clutter the history so much. Just to reiterate, you have done nothing wrong and you can continue as you are, but these steps can save you a lot of time. If you have any questions, you can always swing by the Teahouse as you have done before or drop me a line on my talk page. Have a nice day! Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 21:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
April 2021: Please sign your discussion posts
edit
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button
located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
April 2021
editChrisladds, the edits that you have recently described as "repeated and insistent vandalism" are not vandalism. This is a content dispute. Several highly experienced editors have told you the same thing. Let me repeat: these edits are not vandalism. Please be aware that repeating false accusations of vandalism is a type of disruptive editing, which may lead to a block of your account. So, please stop. I also notice that you have not yet made a single edit to Talk:Calderwood, East Kilbride, which is indisputably the proper place to discuss your concerns about this article. Please comment there and please be concise. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
[[User:Cullen328| I am sorry, but like the other users you are mistaken in this regard nonetheless. This is not a mere content dispute. Like the other editors, regardless of their experience, I suggest you have taken a cursory glance of the edits, or perhaps the later edits as a whole, rather than those causing the issues. I contend that the issues are not content disputes, but are fabricated information which when the editor was made aware of repeatedly then deliberately reversed to reintroduce false information into the Wikipedia article. This is demonstrated by the following prominent sections which currently read as :
"Calderwood Glen was noted for often scarce flora by botanists who historically surveyed the region, including Patrick Ure, Hooker Hopkirk, Lee Hennedy, and Macpherson, whose findings were included in an edited regional survey"
As you can see four names are shown here. They were originally added by me as seven names because they should be seven surnames. The user in question edited them to look like the above. This has invited ridicule directed at me from residents, where I am suggested to have got the names of famous historians/botanists wrong. I reversed this edit, and summarised appropriately. Then it was reversed. I reversed again but left much more clear substantiation in the edit summary, and suggesting that it was correct and should not be reversed. To do so is to introduce false information. The same editor changed it back to the above, and that is how it remains. This is despite all the works the seven botanists contributed to being cited. Three of these names represent particularly famous individuals in the sphere of Strathclyde natural history. This was reversed multiple times and acknowledged by the editor because they responded to one edit after reversing all. This goes quite beyond good faith and is vandalism.
Another example is "The building and estate had belonged to the Hunter family since the 17th century, when it relocated from nearer to East Kilbride kirktoun". Here the editor has changed the family to 'it' instead of 'they'. More importantly they have changed 'was occupied by' to 'belonged to'. From the 17th century until the late 1800s, the estate mostly belonged to the Maxwells of Pollok, the Baillie family and several others. The Hunters lived there as tenants, and then as vassals, and then for two comparatively brief periods they owned it. The source I used is the best source because it is a back-to-back conveyancing transcript of charters. This user was informed that 'belonged' was incorrect because the estate just simply did not belong to them from the 17th century. Occupied is correct because is covers all categories of habitation. This was also reversed three times by the user in the face of a clear editorial summary.
A third is they have reversed the edit re. church to "the Moncreiff Church of Scotland parish church" which should read the Moncreiff Parish Church (Church of Scotland). What the editor wrote is not the name of the church, and the name should be capitalised. This was another third time reversal despite increasingly detailed editorial summaries to emphasise the point that the editor was introducing false information into the article.
These three alone are clear examples, but in combination with all the affected edits, then the basic situation is the editor was made aware repeatedly of false information appearing in the article, yet deliberately reversed them four times. As an experienced user they should have taken note of the comments and not sought to re-introduce wrong information. This is therefore not a content dispute whatsoever. Instead it is vandalism of the page. It may not be in the most severe category of offensive vandalism, but to introduce wrong information knowingly is vandalism. This issue defined by Wikpedia. Furthermore is that the editor doing it does not have access to several of the sources. This is because I am an academic librarian and some of the works are print only. They are not anywhere online, and in the case of the conveyancing volume showing Hunter occupation, it would take a specialist in conveyancing records to understand. Therefore that adds a more serious gloss to the vandalism described, where a user is changing meaning and introducing false information, without even having sources to check to hand. As far as I can see they are a language translator.
Again this is only a few of the affected edits. So regardless of the user's experience; their number of pages edited; or the many positive edits they made the last time they reintroduced the various falsities; the user's actions are still vandalism. It is not difference of opinion over content. The concern the third time around is that all the affected sections were reintroduced alongside various other sincere improvements. That opens the question as to whether a user, experienced or not, can try to sidestep vandalism accusations by trying to counterbalance with correct edits which shroud the real issue. It appears it is those edits which you and the others in the forum are noticing and suggesting honour their contributor. Those are not the issue.
I don't accept your inference that I need to be more concise. My concision is fine for the level of detail communicated. There is no redundancy, and if you do not like my detailed contributions that communicate my point then that is your preference. I do not like such simple preferences. To tell me to do otherwise seems like bullying and supporting what you judge other 'experienced' users to have said. That is called ganging up, and regardless of experience the facts speak for themselves. I maintain that the situation I described is page vandalism. I would be quite happy for an experienced moderator to look over that, and I don't accept any wrongdoing here beyond not knowing about the talk page option, which was from lack of experience. Chrisladds (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Chrisladds - your reply to Cullen328 is all too long and convoluted to read easily. Please try helping others help and understand you by giving WP:DIFFS to demonstrate problems or improvements to edits you have made so that we can quickly see what you are complaining about. Your moaning about vandalism (as Wikipedia defines it, not how you define it) does not help your case.
- It just so happens that I am a botanist and an author of a County Flora (also published by Pisces Publications, like the Flora of Lanarkshire!), so I took an interest in your surname change issue. I agree with your concern over these edits; it was quite wrong for names to be joined so as to appear as first and surnames. That was an honest mistake, and quite funny to me. I have fixed it with this edit, and have tried to improve the rather odd wording, have shortened it, and have alpha-sorted the surnames. I even wonder whether you need them all. You could, yourself, have wikilinked to two of the notable botanists' surnames you listed - as I have now done - and avoided that issue. Remember: none of us are mind-readers. Make your edits, then keep your edit summary concise & clear, and avoid assuming bad faith. Pedantry has its place here, but not to the annoyance of everyone else. And remember: the other pedant usually thinks they are correct, too - so discuss issues with them directly. The article talk page is the best place for that. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Read the boomerang essay. Then either report the other editor at WP:ANI or WP:AIV, or don't report them and stop talking about them. By continuing to say that they are engaging in vandalism, but by not making a formal report, you are casting aspersions, which is a low-level poison strategy. Either follow through with your claims, or drop them utterly and forever, or expect to be banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
April 2021
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. - You have been blocked for continuing to make false accusations of vandalism despite being warned to stop, and for failure to explain your concerns at Talk:Calderwood, East Kilbride, as you have been repeatedly advised to do. Please do better when your block expires. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)