User talk:Kilnburn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Somerfield, Stirling

add your comments here, below Kilnburn (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Kirkcaldy

I've just done an overhaul of some of your edits to Kirkcaldy today. Continuing from what I've said on your former(?) User talk:Silverburn page, here are some further comments. We've discussed your difficulty expressing yourself verbally and this is still very evident as your edits today took quite a lot of work to straighten them out I'm afraid. You did some good work removing material that is not notable but did remove some bits which were. There were lots of spelling and grammatical mistakes too. A way of reducing this would be to take the text of any of your edits, copy and paste them into a wordprocessing programme, like Word, and run a spellcheck before saving the edit. You also often add phrases which don't add anything to the text. Try to tighten up you phrasing. Some examples I've seen you use in the past are in relation to location. You often say “is situated in” “resides” in “is home to". It's usually clearer to just say "is in", "is at" or for “is home to", just "has". Phrasing it the other way can sound a bit flowery, even pompous. Another phrase you used today and have used before is "being considered to give the green light". The phrase is clumsy and not clear as if it is being considered, it may then get "the green light" but it also may get a red or amber, so to speak. Best just to say "being considered". Another thing you must do is to cite your edits. You may know it's true, but if there is no citation to back it up it shouldn't be there. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

that's fine. i try my best not to say things in past tense if they are in the present tense, but i believe i could slipping up a lot of the time. i don't know.

now with the spellchecker, that's a very good idea. i should do that because even though i have not too bad spelling, it is the sentence stucturing that is the real problem i have.

i cut a lot of the Waterfront project sub-section, because i felt most of it was unneccesary and some of had outdated. hence, why there isn't much left.

but what the most important thing here is, if you feel things that i obmitted from the article should be reinstalled, then i'm going to give the permission to do it.

thank you again

p.s. to clarify, i was previously silverburn and lost my password which is why i started again with a new username and passwordKilnburn (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Kilnburn, this is getting to be very hard work. You may find it laborious but please check your edits more thoroughly. You've removed a citation tag now without providing a citation. You are adding superfluous details about roundabouts again - please take on board that this kind of thing is not notable. The estate name is Mitchelston, not Mitchelson - you can check spelling of proper names on the internet as they may not be in a wordprocessor spellchecker. You talk about your grammar problems- many wordprocessors have grammar checkers too, e.g. Word. I'm trying to be patient to help you see the individual problems with each of your edits but it's starting to be an impositon on my time and patience. Once again, please be more careful. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your comments at User talk:Duncancumming, once again, I'm sorry that you feel you are being bullied but I thought you now realised that I am putting in a considerable amount of time trying to help you. Your recent edits have more focus than previously and you've evidently taken on board some of the comments. You will notice that I left quite a lot of your contributions intact. However, your edits are still sometimes problematic, particularly in regard to phrasing, spelling and grammar and yesterday you also removed tags without addressing them. Once again I left copious notes for you, explaining why I made the changes that I had made when I could have just altered them and made more cursory comments. I'm sorry Kilnburn but if you are going to carry on editing when you have these difficulties expressing yourself, you can not get touchy if people come in and sort out parts of it afterwards. I'm sorry if you feel like I'm being a control freak but I think it's worthwhile giving you detailed comments on each edit so that you can carry on improving. Not to do so feels like I'd be letting you be "fed to the lions", so to speak - many other editors will not be so patient with you.
In regard to logging on - you do not have to, but as I saw you were editing under your ISP, I guessed this was because you had forgotten and thought you might appreciate a reminder. I explained how it can be confusing if you edit under several identities. Not that it's important but it's Lunker, by the way, not Lucker. Also, I have never called you a pest or said that I didn't believe you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

right, that's fine. it's just i feel that wikipedia takes it very seriously if you forget. that's why.

i would like to add some info. on the new prosposed Mosque in the religion section, if you don't mind and i do plan to change my wording concerning The Waterfront development. Kilnburn (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

right just to keep you up to date, i will become known as kilburn from now on. i know, writing and making adjustments under all these other user names is just no good. i didn't actually want to be in that situation. i want to close the silverburn account, but i'm not very sure how to do this properly (which frankly means, i don't have a clue)

anyway, try to keep this short. i have started a new Victoria Hospital article whereby much of the info. in the Victoria Hospital sub-section in the Kirkcaldy article has been moved into. thus only a brief mention of the hospital on the Kirkcaldy article remains.

other changes have included finding (again) the vital reference that states that the original waterfront development was denied; John Smith Business Park extension and the rebuilding/mention of Kirkcaldy's mosque.

i have noticed that the new paragraph that was added by someone and my paragraph on Kirkcaldy's High Street in the Kirkcaldy Town Centre article are both very similar. although, i don't want to shred what the good person wrote, but maybe it might be a good idea to merge both of them together where neccessary. i'm not sure, but thought i'd bring it to your attention

i'm in consideration over submitting pictures to the Kirkcaldy article myself

thanks again Kilnburn (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine. Good luck with the pictures by the way - I look forward to seeing your efforts. As I mentioned you don't need to stop with ones that fit the article but can add contributions to help build up the files in Wikimedia Commons too. I just checked the cities and villages in Scotland category and it doesn't have a Kirkcaldy subcategory yet. Maybe a chance for you to steal a march on Glenrothes!
I've made a few changes to recent edits, some of them yours and some of them by other people I think. Just to summarise and clarify some of my changes: the new John Smith Business Park section had been dropped into a paragraph about something else so it got a bit confused with what came before and especially what came after; the bit about the mosque stated that it already existed when it's still just at the planning stage according to the citation, so I changed it to reflect that. Aye, Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

that's fine. there has been a mosque in the town and i happen to know exactly where it is, but i did put the sentence in an awkward place. i'm going to make an effort with the pictures and have decided to write a subcategory for Kirkcaldy for representation, but i have noticed that it is a broken link onto the Wikipedia commons (i definitely will take an opportunity to steal some of Glenrothes' intentions)

i wish to steal a feature off the Glenrothes article-road networks and incorporate it in the town just before Kirkcaldy Railway Station. i think it would be really good and i will mention Kirkcaldy's importance as a primary destination in Fife (that not even Glenrothes has!)Kilnburn (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2008

just to let you know, the new sub-section Road Network has been added to the transport section. i have tried my best with this, but if you feel it can be described better, then you are welcome to edit the wording.thanks again. Kilnburn (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

right i have taken some pictures in the town centre area including the sheriff court and such today. can you tell me where to upload the pictures to and how? (the ones that are accepted) thanks Kilnburn (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


Howdy, folks! figured I'd post here, since there's already a good discussion about the article going! I shuffled some of the photos around and chopped one (the school of Nursing and Midwifery, which is a pretty dull building, really - I popped it down in the gallery) because I couldn't see an easy way for it not to break into the next section on the page and look a little odd. I also added some text and had a general tidy up - I think it's all pretty good, and I wasn't massively overzealous. :) See what you think. njan (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Road Network

Hi K, just wanted to say it's clear you've been taking more care putting your thoughts into words here. I did make some changes to this new section but they were pretty minor in comparison to usual and overall it was pretty well expressed.
Regarding "being a primary destination in Scotland", I left that in but with {{clarifyme}} as I'm not sure it adds much and maybe strays a little from NPOV. There are many destinations in Scotland which are more demonstrably of a primary nature, but if you can cite statistics or a quote to back it up that'd be fine. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

yep, that's fine. actually, before i was going to start writing the sub-section, i was going to find a source for Kirkcaldy's primary destination but i never found anything which does make me feel a bit skeptical even making a slight mention of it. i thought this was going to cause a little bit of bother, but i'll see if i can find any references elsewhere or otherwise i will delete what is appropriate Kilnburn (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Waterfront Develpment

I put the {{clarifyme}} tag on the sentence "Since January 2008, the development has been downgraded[clarify] and is being considered by Fife Council.". You keep removing it without clarifying it, despite my query "Do you mean "the development plan has been scaled down" perhaps. To talk about a development that doesn't exist yet (and potentially may never exist) as being downgraded is nonsensical. Do you mean the plan is being downgraded? I suggested using "scaled down" since "downgrade" may have connotations of belittling it. Also, you haven't cited this. The citations at the end of the paragraph do not address this aspect. I'm trying to be helpful in patiently addressing each problematic part of your edits but you are making it difficult by doing things like this, just removing a tag without addressing it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

yep that's what i mean, "the development has been scaled down". sadly, i have been unable to find a reference that the cinema will be 8-screen but i did read it in the Fife Free Press recently. i might of had a reference, but since i deleted the previous info, i might have lost it, just to let you know Kilnburn (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

oh dear! i decided to obmit a lot of the Waterfront development since i feel it is getting out of hand. that's why i cut it right down. we don't need all this info. that's all we need to know (and also to ensure what is happening right now with it is most important of all). i might need to repharse the sentences and if again, you're not happy, then let me know. after that, it might be worth a mention on the Kirkcaldy article to see what others think. Kilnburn (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

it's been dealt with. see above Kilnburn (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Berwick upon Tweed

Good edits. However, I think the Pevsner quote should stay in, if only to justify your "great architecture". --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

well, that's all right. thank you. my first venture beyond Kirkcaldy. i have been a visitor to the town many times (if only to go to a fish and chip shop opposite Co-op and a visitor to both the Morrisons and McDonald's!)

i have though started a new section entitled "Berwick Town Centre" with very little info but i hope to get this up and running fairly soon. also, from reading an article about the town on BBC News, i wish to include another reference concerning the English status. Kilnburn (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

For your information. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi K, your picture entitled "High St (East End), Kirkcaldy" is actually of the west end - the West End Congregational Church is clearly visible. You've evidently been busy with the camera lately! Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

oops! wrong side, thanks for changing this.

anyway, i wish to add some more. Kilnburn (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

just to let you know, i took the last batch of the ones i wanted to do, especially the former Nairn's factory on Nairn Street. most are in the pictures section and some have been added into the article itself. i have finished now and won't add anymore, if you wish to move or delete them if you need to, then i'll grant you permission. give me feedback if you're happy with what i have done

although since the grade 2 listed former Nairn factory on Nairn Street is due to be demolished not too far away, i'm wondering if it should be kept on the article after it is demolished. i have though noted about it's demise. Kilnburn (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just had a quick look at the photos again. It's certainly made a difference to the article. This is just my personal and non-expert opinion but I'd say they're largely pretty good, particularly as you were quite reticent to undertake the task. If you want a wee bit of constructive criticism, there are a few that are a bit obscured by other objects or have large parts of the foreground taken up by roads, cars or other things but it's difficult if you are trying to frame up a large building and have to get far enough away to get it all in shot, without the benefit of specialist lenses or access to places where you might get a clearer shot. This is just for a minority of them though and there are certainly no stinkers. On the contrary there are quite a few that have shown me new views of familiar places or highlighted things I hadn't paid much attention to before. Well done.
Regarding "permission", you've used the term before and I'm not sure if you mean it in the way I would normally understand it or that you're just encouraging me to take a look and give it some tweaks if I feel it's necessary. If it's the latter, fair enough and thanks for letting me know. Otherwise, as I mentioned before, anyone is free to come and edit Wikipedia so there isn't really a concept of giving or refusing permission like this (apart from extreme cases when people can be blocked for bad faith edits etc., but this isn't relevant here). Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] refimprove/editing/more re Kirkcaldy

My {{refimprove}} tag was aimed at the whole Kirkcaldy article, which lacks citations in general, credible ones in particular. This was partly to show that although I was asking you to cite some of your recent additions, this was not just aimed at you but is an issue for the article as a whole.
When I talk about credible citaions, you may find this and this useful. You tend to add citations you have found on the internet, newspaper online sites are probably okay. I know this is the easiest way to find references but it can be difficult to tell how reliable these sources are since anyone can set them up and there is almost certainly no peer review. See the section in the guideline on self-published sources. Self-perpetuating dubious facts can pop up all over the internet as one site copies from another. We should try to avoid these infiltrating Wikipedia.
In general books are more reliable. I know this means they are not so easy to come by but the extra effort is repaid with more reliable text in the article. Anyway, have a look at the guidelines on reliability. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

agreed. it's a very fair point. that's what i thought thinking it was general problem overall. the problem i have found is, bits of info spread across the article are coming from the same source, that is being used for other bits of info. this is what happens because as far as i have seen, there aren't too many sites about the town on the web outside the main ones

actually talking about books, i actually have books about the town from the Kirkcaldy Civic Society, so it may be actually a good idea to hunt these out.

thanks

p.s. currently adding some photos (only where they are needed) onto the article Kilnburn (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add back the tag in the hope that we'll get some more citations. As it stands much of the article (including long-standing sections) is interesting but not credible without the back up of citations. Tagging parts does not (necessarily) mean you doubt them, just a reminder that policy directs that they should be reliably cited.
Go for your life with the books - much better than citing internet stuff which could be correct or a pile of guff with no way of knowing. Civic Society ones should be credible. All the best with the photos too.
Lastly, would you mind going back to your additions today, weeding out any that are affected by issues of verifiability etc.? I was only part way through copyediting etc. of your additions but if we're agreed that some of it needs to be rolled back, I'd appreciate it if you went back and did it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

right that's fine. i'll get that sorted out. Kilnburn (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, Kilnburn, forgot to mention one thing to you yesterday, which may be helpful. You talk about having “asked permission” to include “a more improved history section”. I’m not sure what you mean by this as anyone can edit – you don't need permission any more than any one else but also there is no special status of permission granted to confer greater status on certain edits, if this is what you mean.
Regarding yesterdays edits, rather than go in and make changes myself this time I thought it might be more helpful first to give you an explanation of (some of) the bits which require some work from your efforts of yesterday (the list may seem long but is not exhaustive). Then you can tackle them yourself, rather than me doing it and you having to follow a series of notes in edit summaries from me. The main issues are introducing uncited material, citing material from sources of unknown reliability, misquoting citations (I assume in good faith), writing things which are not in the citations at all, confusing phraseology, deleting notable material. Here we go:
Intro:
Your sentence “The name is believed to come from a Celtic phrase for “fort on a rocky hill”” – duplicates the fully-cited previous sentence but with a less full explanation. “although there is belief it should be associated with a church hence being part of the name” – misquote from self-published web source (therefore unknown reliability) whose primary aim is accommodation not history. What’s more the source only mentions the supposed church derivation as what “one would assume” – i.e. assume wrongly. Therefore the whole sentence duplicates earlier material then misinterprets the citation about an incorrect derivation – i.e. it should be deleted.
“The burgh of Dysart was merged into Kirkcaldy in 1930, although the former burgh still retains it's own identity. [1]”. The “retains it's own identity” is not stated in the citation (again from the web and of unknown reliability) and could be said to be flatly contradicted where it says “is effectively a north-eastern suburb of Kirkcaldy”. Misquote, POV, this part of the sentence should go.
You removed the (cited, partially at least) section starting “The last ship to enter the harbour was in 1991. Much of the quay area…”, without explanation as far as I can see. Then you removed the sentence “In the 17th century it boasted one of the earliest Latvian consulates, reflecting centuries of trade with Scandinavia, the Baltic States and the Netherlands.”, again without explanation. This was uncited (not sure if that’s why you removed it) but would certainly be highly notable if it can be verified so it would have been better to put a {{fact}} tag on it for a while. I’d recommend this go back in and hopefully someone will cite it.
History:
You removed the well-written but uncited paragraph beginning “Kirkcaldy was gifted to the monks…”. All this is notable so I’d say it should go back but {{fact}} tagged.
Your new paragraph beginning “The modern town of Kirkcaldy…” is uncited and has several parts where the phrasing is unclear and confusing. If the source is the same as the one listed in the following paragraph (internet, unknown reliability), there are misquotes from it regarding the date (e.g. 1075 when you say 1095) and as to what happened (the source states land in Kirkcaldy was granted to the Abbey, not what you have said). Salt was not discovered but the industry was developed. These are not the only examples by the way.
The following paragraph (“Kirkcaldy became an important port “) is also often confusing (“vital in case of a south eastern shore being vulnerable to storm”?), misquotes the source in several instances and states many things not said at all in the source.
There are similar issues with the other edits from yesterday but don't have time to detail them all. Please address them. I hope this was helpful to you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

right, that was a silly thing to include Dysart retaining it's own identity so i'm going to remove it.

what i was planning to do was remove the sentence: "In the 17th century......" and add it into the history section, but again i'll sort that out.

with the mention of "The modern town of Kirkcaldy...." now that is incorrect since it wasn't until 1930 that when Dysart merged, was the beginning of the modern town. so again, have to change the phrasing.

i will also remove the part "vital in case of a south eastern shore...." since it is not important.

concerning the decline of the harbour when "the last ship was in 1991" i will again change the phrasing.

yep, i noticed that my sentence "the name is believed" replicates the word "believed" again. have to re-phrase this too.

also Kirkcaldy was gifted to the monks from Dunfermline Abbey in 1384 will return. Kilnburn (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh Kilnburn, please do not re-interpret or rewrite the things you are adding back. You have phrased this really badly and frankly it is quite nonsensical "The town boasted in the 17th century one of the first Lativan connections with trade in the Baltic States and the Netherlands as well."??? That is not what was said (it is about a consulate not some undefined "connection"), you've introduced spelling mistakes and your sentence is effectively meaningless. Go back to the last version of Kirkcaldy before your changes (i.e. at the time of the last edit on March 1st), find the text in question, copy it exactly as written and replace it in the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Now "the last ship came in 1991 and recently been boarded up with flats now on the site and the coal mines since the closure of the Seafield Colliery."??? Does this mean that a ship came in 1991, the ship was boarded up with flats recently (rather than boards?) and also boarded up with coal mines. I'm sure that's not what you meant but how is somebody to come to the article and try and understand this? Kilnburn, I'm trying to help but it's exasperating. This is just a stream of phrases and ideas in no cogent order and resulting in no sense. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, the Latvian bit's improved now. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

i actually remembered the sentence you see but i had forgotten the word "consenlate" so i subsituted it for "connection" thinking someone would be able to change it for me (which would be a bit selfishness of me). hopefully, it's all right now and you must let me know, if it's not. Kilnburn (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you've been honest about this, it's useful to know. Please be more diligent and careful. It would be selfish to make sloppy edits hoping that someone will clear up after you. This would be really hard work for others and a real imposition to expect someone else to do this. I'm not saying this is what you have done with your edits today and yesterday but when I saw all the problems with them that I've partially listed above, it struck me that it would be a couple of hours work to clean them up but it would be much easier to revert to the last edit before you'd started. This would "throw out the baby with the bathwater" in the sense that good material might be ditched with the bad but you can't expect people to make good your mistakes, particularly when there are so many.
"Kirkcaldy in recent times has lost both the legacy of the harbour, the last ship arrived in 1991 and has been since boarded up with flats now on the site and the coal mines since the closure of the Seafield Colliery." is still jumbled up and doesn't make sense. Try "The closure of the Seafield Colliery saw the end of mining and the last ship left the harbour in 1991. The harbour (i.e. not the ship as your phrasing unintentionally implies) has since been mothballed (you can maybe board up harbour buildings but not the harbour), (comma inserted) with flats now on the site."Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

mmmmm.....right. oh dear! i thought the introduction was going to be removed (as i can see). i actually did what you suggested, i found the info from the sources and tried my best to construct a paragraph in a word documentwith the spell checker and a readover before i even thought about cut and pasting the info. into the article. it really was a good idea, so thank you. the info was probably removed because of a lack of sources and sources having false info being the possible reasons just like you said and for that i completely understand. what i don't understand is why on the board, they are so determined that "Kirkcaldy was gifted to the monks at Dunfermline Abbey in 1384" and that on all the sources i found, that wasn't mentioned one bit, making a huge mention of Kirkcaldy going as far as back as 1095 being used primarly as a coal field area. was that source from a book?

in terms of what is most important here, i know the phrasing wasn't brillant when i was describing: "Kirkcaldy in recent times....." but at least i'm going to take the advice because personally i wasn't happy with the extremely long sentence but i had difficulty trying to figure out how to cut it into two or how to rephrase the sentence. Kilnburn (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, in the history intro I initially tried to keep as much of your new material as possible by making amendments to it but there were problems with nearly ever part, so I ended up having to just remove most of it - otherwise it would have had to have been almost entirely re-written. There was only one citation listed (the web site - whch seems pretty well written although it isn't clear where it sources its info). Assuming this was your only source: some of your additions were evidently not actually from this citation; some appeared to have straightforward errors (e.g. the citation says 1075, you said 1095); you appear to have simply misunderstood parts; some of your additions consisted of fragments from the source, reassembled to give an entirely different (and incorrect) meaning; you also seemed to put an interpretation on some parts that is either not in or different to the citation.
You have been making gradual improvements in your editing but there is still some work to put in. Regarding citations, please be more careful. As discussed, the article as a whole needs more of them but any new additions you make must be cited and you must accurately reflect that citation. Make sure it's a reliable citation, quote or paraphrase it accurately, don't change it or put your own interpretation on it (even if you are sure what you want to say is true, if it isn't in the citation it shouldn't be in the article) and if you're not sure you understand something in the citation, best to leave that part out.
Regarding Dunfermline Abbey, dates etc., I put that back in for now but there is no citation, put a fact tag on it. Think I have a new reliable source though, in an encyclopedia. Checking it out with a view to adding it... Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Found similar issues regarding misquoting the citation in the Linoleum Trade section, hence the overhaul. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

that's a very fair and honest statement. agreed. the change in the Linoleum Trade section is absolutely fine.

the thing i'm going to do is find those books and see what they contain for info. at the moment, unless i know exactly what i have in plan, it's best to leave the section as it is. if i feel it is neccessary to add info, it probably will be from the books. i have to very careful i don't give myself too much work and effort trying to create something that backfires. Kilnburn (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you are happy with the edits. I think you are right to be careful about taking on too much work and the possibility of things backfiring - in your eagerness you've often been biting off far more than you can chew. It's evident that when you make large sweeping changes to the text, trying to add lots of diverse material all at once, that you tend to get confused, jumble it up, make mistakes, add things that are not in the cited source and express it in a way that is difficult to comprehend. A lot of work for you, then a lot of work for others to try to straighten it out.
Can I suggest that a better course for you in future would be to concentrate on just dealing with one or two facts at a time, taking time and lots of care to make small but really good contributions. Much better to add just a few well-chosen words at a time than huge sweeping changes full of mistakes. It would also make it easier for other editors to follow the changes and spot any (hopefully much fewer!) mistakes. More patient incremental edits will enhance the article and improve it more quickly than big hasty changes and additions.
One good thing I have noticed about your edits lately is an improvement in focus on what is and isn't notable. There may have been other problems with the recent edits but, as far as I remember, they all concerned notable matters. You've evidently been working to curb your earlier tendency to add superfluous and distracting details (for instance on roads or junctions near to notable places). Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misquoting citations, unexplained deletions

Hi Kilnburn, thanks for the info about the Balwearie High web site.
In regard to some recent edits of yours, although you have made improvements in giving citations, I'm concerned that the edits very often misrepresent and misquote the citations. I'm guessing that sometimes this may be due to a misunderstanding of the cited text but the pattern has become so consistent that I'm wondering if tend to write something which you believe to be true then search for citations to back up your opinion, using whatever you find whether it really supports the edit or not. If this is the case I'm sure it is not with malicious intent but you must not do this. Better to find sources first and then make edits on the basis of their content. If it doesn't say it in the source, you should not put it in the article. If you haven't already, read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources and you will find them useful.
The pattern in regard to misquotes has made me worry about many of the longer standing citations in the text as I believe many of them are attributable to you and I'm now wondering how accurately these parts of the article reflect their citations.
Also you should not blank text without a good reason and if you do so you should certainly give an edit summary, detailing clearly why you have done so.
Lastly, I notice that you were puzzled as to the disappearance of some photos you had uploaded. Although I have added some photos myself, this is an aspect of editing I'm less au fait with. Thus I don't have a quick answer without doing a bit of revision, but I think it is probably down to the way you are attributing the photo, meaning it can't be used under Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia:Image use policy should be of help to you. If that doesn't provide the answer, there is also a Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk. All the best, Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I notice you have removed, for the second time, the word probably in the phrase "The retail park is probably the most successful in Fife". The text you cited clearly says "in Kirkcaldy the Retail Park at Chapel is probably the strongest performing Retail Park in Fife". It does not say that it is the strongest performing. To remove the word probably misrepresents the citation. I put the word back in this morning, clearly explaining in an edit summary: "rv: the citation clearly says "probably" ("Chapel is probably the strongest performing Retail Park in Fife")". To remove the word again, as you have done, now appears to be a deliberate attempt to push a POV by deliberately misquoting a citation. You gave no edit summary to explain your action and no new citation which does actually say that it is the strongest performing. Please give an explanation, a citation which backs up your assertion or replace the word probably in the sentence. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

yep. oh dear! the reason i removed the word "probably" is i do not agree with the source material because if you go to the retail park on a regular basis, the stretch of road into the place and running all the way done to Sainsbury's is gridlock on both sides; most of the car park spaces along the seven units on the left are taken and the Sainsbury's petrol station is dealing with more traffic meaning you often have to wait for a space, as it the only petrol station in the vicinity (Kirkcaldy West area) since they decided to shut the Esso on Chapel Level. you know, the source did state it was strongest performing, but i don't believe it was "probably" the strongest performing from the view of Fife Council which i think is very unfair to suggest. the thing is, i don't want to use this word but i don't know what to replace it with. Kilnburn (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok Kilnburn, that's all very well but whether or not you personally think this, it is just not relevant in Wikipedia if you can't back it up. If I were to agree with you, that cuts no ice either. We could discuss our personal experience of how busy various retail parks in Fife appear to be but our opinions on the matter have no place in the article. This is very important and we've discussed this kind of thing endlessly.
To state that it is definitively the most successful retail park without anything to back it up constitutes original research, which has no place here. This is very, very important - please understand this. The detailed report you cite thinks it is probably the strongest performing, but is unable to state the fact definitively. To state in your edit that it does state this definitively is not true and it would not be honest to leave it there. You must address this. As I said before, your choices are actually very simple: to find a reliable citation which backs up your assertion or replace the word probably in the sentence. To leave it as it is not an option.
As mentioned, this kind of thing is a persistent feature of many of your edits and I'm finding it very frustrating and frankly disheartening to have to check them out to see if you've allowed your enthusiam for a personal point of view to misrepresent another citation. Please tailor your edits to the verifiable facts you uncover, rather than write your personal opinions first then try to to back them up by bending citations which actually say something different. Please finally take this on board. You've made some noticeable improvements in your editing so please don't spoil it by continuing this trait. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I've tagged the section in the mean time. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

well since i was the one who added the sentence and reference, i will remove it because it is frankly causing too much bother for you and me too. Kilnburn (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Your latest Kirkcaldy edit summary says that you "have deleted a sentence and reference that was causing a bit of bother". Firstly, the reference was actually a useful one and it was not causing any bother. The bother was due to your misquotation. I actually think the reference is quite a useful one and the statement that Chapel is "probably the strongest performing Retail Park in Fife" is notable. Removing the sentence and reference is not necessary. What needs to be addressed is the misquotation, which can be done by re-inserting the word probably. Lastly, whether by accident or not and contrary to the assertion in your edit summary, you have actually left the sentence in question entirely untouched. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

oh, all in one piece too. now it has all been explained to me, it's what's best for the article that counts at the end of the day. maybe i should keep my personal opinions to myself so i don't get into bother again with someone else. thank you and glad to find my info concerning the troubled Balwearie High School website so useful. Kilnburn (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, it is what's best for the article that counts. You've hit the nail on the head; we should all keep our personal opinions out of articles to maintain a neutral point of view. It's fine to express them in discussion in talk pages but only verifiable cited material should be in the articles. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kirkcaldy

I quite liked that picture; I thought the contrast between the very white and modern Adam Smith building, St. Brycedale, and the terraced houses gave a nice impression of old and new. You're right, though, the pictures it's been replaced with are lots better. Well done for improving the article - looks like a lot of good work; keep it up! :) I'll take a look back in a while when I've got some free time on my hands, and see if there's anything more I can add; I've been far too busy of late to be able to spend any time on wikipedia. Cheers! njan (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

thank you. that's very much appreciated. well thanks to the bulk that i submitted, Kirkcaldy now has more photos than neighbouring Glenrothes.

talking about pictures, there is this article i did recently Victoria Hospital (Kirkcaldy) if you care to look when you have the time, which i'm going to take/submit photos of the main entrance, A&E and main road outside the hospital, plus one of the Whyteman's Brae, all to be done on my own. but i've had a thought that you if you're able, then you'd be welcome to take these photos for my article, i could have easily done them myself, but i have contributed far far far too much and it's not fair not giving others a chance to showcase their work. anyway, i'll leave this option open to you or anyone else you know might have an interest for this. Kilnburn (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Take away, if it's convenient. I'm in no hurry to make a visit to the hospital any time soon. ;) The Kirkcaldy article is getting a little photo-heavy, though - although Victoria Hospital (Kirkcaldy) could certainly take a couple of extra pictures.. well done for the good work! See above for the selected highlights of some subediting I just did.. Incidentally, no biggie, but in future, if you could reply on User_talk:Njan, that'd be handy - I'm more likely to see your comments that way, given my current tentative wikipedic status. :) njan (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed the picture caption - feel free to fix my edits if you notice they're broken, though; I wear big stompy boots, you're certainly not going to tread on my toes. :) njan (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kirkcaldy Town Centre Edits

In what way was this being rude? You keep adding shop names when you have been told on a number of occassions that they have no place on a factual website like wikipedia, yet you continue to add them. All you need to say is "well-known" retailers, as I said it never even happened so why is it relevant to even mention them? Kirkcaldy has a HMV now anyhow and we can see what shops were interested from the news article reference.

I understand you are only trying to help, but at the same time if you can't take some constructive criticism, without taking offence, then you shouldnt't be editing the Kirkcaldy page.

195.27.12.180 (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

well,195.27...... why is this being allowed to happen then, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_Shopping_Centre; and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenock#Trade_and_commerce hmmmm........

yes, shops should be kept to be a minimum and i believe if they must be mentioned, they should be backed by sources where possible, particularly if they have importance in the town. of course, i know HMV now exists, but they obviously were still interested in the town even with the collapse of the original Waterfront plan.

i'm fine with constructive criticism,but i do have slight asperger's syndrome which does it make it hard sometimes for me to appreciate this, hence i was trying to be as understanding as i could.

after all, it's all for the best of the appearance of the article, anyway and you or nor i can argue with that. agreed. Kilnburn (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:DSCN1520.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:DSCN1520.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Nilfanion (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

i'll get that sorted out. thanks for the acknowledgment. Kilnburn (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:The Mercat.Kirkcaldy.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:The Mercat.Kirkcaldy.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

i would like you to delete one of my pictures entitled Image:The Mercat.Kirkcaldy.JPG and to delete Image:DSCN1520.JPG completely, since i have no control over this.

sadly, my picture has been blown out of preportion when i tried to insert it into The Mercat Shopping Centre article and would like to get it down to a normal size, but don't know how to do this? i have a fear it may be deleted. where do i go to resolve this on the help pages. seen below: Image:The Mercat.Kirkcaldy.JPG

Kilnburn (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:The Mercat Kirkcaldy.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:The Mercat Kirkcaldy.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

i've correctly this. Kilnburn (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion, population wealth, Glenrothes & Kirkcaldy

Thought this might interest you.

Its a note Fife Council have prepared on the Labour Market in Fife (see link below).

[2]

It shows where the areas with the highest number of benefit claiments are, and therefore where the wealthy and poorer parts of Fife are.

It shows you were right about the where the areas of wealth in Kirkcaldy are.

Read for yourself and you can make up your own mind about which town has the wealthier population.

195.27.12.180 (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

well, this is really fascinating actually. thank you very much for your gesture Kilnburn (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:The Forge Shopping Centre logo.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:The Forge Shopping Centre logo.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re "approval of Kirkcaldy reconstruction plan"

Hi Kilnburn, nice to hear from you. Just wanted to let you know I'd seen your post on my talk page. It merits a considered and detailed response which I'm not able to give right at the moment so I'll have to get back to you a bit later. If I don't get a chance to respond later tonight it may not be until the weekend but I promise I will get back to you when I can. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

nah, that's fine. take as long as you want. it's just i feel it is time, the Kirkcaldy article underwent a major reconstruction Kilnburn (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Kilnburn. I’ve had a little bit of time to write you a partial response.
Firstly, I’m more than happy to give you some help. It sounds like you have a lot of ideas and are a bit daunted by what you are about to take on, which is understandable. In that case I firstly ought to mention (as I think I’ve said to you in the past) that I often don’t have much time to devote to Wikipedia because of other interests and am quite often travelling and consequently have limited or even no access to the internet for a few days or even weeks. As long as you understand this and won’t get frustrated if there is a delay in my responding, please feel free to get in touch whenever you’d like some help.
Now, in regard to your post on my talk page, here is some feedback, comments and questions for you. I hope you find them useful.
I think it is a wise decision for you to work in small stages as you work more effectively that way and it is easier for other users to follow the changes you have made and to spot any problems. I think you are more patient lately, and that’s good.
I’m unfamiliar with the concept of a “construction tag”. Can you point me to the relevant project page please?
Regarding your subtitle “approval of Kirkcaldy reconstruction plan”, the implication that you value my views is nice to hear from you but as long as you appreciate that my personal agreement (or disagreement) with any plans you have doesn’t grant any special status to them. As we have had differences in opinion and lengthy discussions about wiki policy and so on in the past, if we two can be more closely in agreement that would obviously be good in future. However we are only two users out of the many that are involved.
It’s important that other editors have the opportunity to be involved and co-operate if any major overhaul of the Kirkcaldy article takes place so I think it would be a good idea to also take your ideas to the Kirkcaldy discussion page. I’ll be keeping an eye on the article, as you know I do but, more patient as you are lately, I’m a little worried that if you are relying on quick responses from me personally that you may get frustrated if I’m not able to respond quickly sometimes or devote much time.
An idea I have may seem a rather unusual way of editing but I wonder if it may work for you. As your edits often have issues regarding spelling, grammar, clarity of expression and misquotation or misunderstanding of citations, these edits are then often heavily revised or even reverted by other editors (including myself). I know you find this frustrating and often think that people are being offensive or bullying you, attributing these misunderstandings to your slight Asperger syndrome. Rather than have this “two steps forward, one step back” experience it might be an idea to write a draft of any edited or new text and place it on the discussion page first (with full reference info) for comment, before adding it to the article itself. This way any problems can be spotted and ironed out before the article itself is altered. Obviously this would require some patience as, for this approach to be of worth, a wait of a few days for others to see your draft would be required. If you get some feedback, you could alter the draft accordingly and if you don’t get any feedback, you could feel more confident that your text is well drafted as it stands. That said, it’s important to remember that this would not give it a special “approved” status if added in to the article and that other users can still make edits to it afterwards. You are very open and up front about the difficulties you have editing and, unusual as this approach to editing would be, I’m sure people would appreciate it and it would avoid the kind of situations that you have found confrontational in the past.
In regard to the Kirkcaldy article itself:
Whaling, saltmaking, linoleum and the harbour are all worthy topics. Incidentally, prompted by your misspelling “linelem”, I notice that after an initial improvement, your rate of misspelling has increased a bit again. It was evident when you were making more use of the spellchecker before making edits, so please remember to do this.
I think it’s best to retain media, politics and regional info as separate sections because although they currently concern only modern media, politics etc. they could in future be expanded to include historical info. The current modern Kirkcaldy sub-section is at the end of the history section so is really recent history of Kirkcaldy. I can see your point in regard to “info about the former MP, Lewis Mooney and Gordon Brown's former MP seat”, as you put it. This would have been more notable a couple of years ago but is of less relevance now. Regarding radio stations, the ones that are directly local and specifically cover Kirkcaldy and the surrounding area (Forth One, 2 and Kingdom FM) are of relevance I would say but going wider (Tay and Real) is probably not sufficiently relevant.
I’ve got to head out now, and so my comments about the other matters you mentioned will have to be added another time. I’ll try to get back to you soon but I hope the above has been a useful start. I’m interested to know about the book you mention, "Old Kirkcaldy:North, West and East", by the way. Is this the exact title and can you tell me the publisher?
I’ll be back in touch soon. Aye, Mutt
Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi again Kilnburn, saw your post on the Kirkcaldy talk page today. Really busy again this week but thought I'd let you know I'll be on the case at some point, as and when I can. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I’ve finally got a little time to reply on some of what we’ve been discussing. Regarding putting on an {{underconstruction}} tag, it was interesting to find out about that as I hadn’t heard of it before. It says on the Category:Articles actively undergoing construction page “While all articles on Wikipedia are by definition unfinished and in need of improvement, these are undergoing a major editing process – help with which is always appreciated – and may soon change significantly.”. I’m not sure at what stage you regard an editing process to be major but I’m unsure that the tag would be entirely appropriate. I know you regard the Kirkcaldy article as being deficient and I would at least agree that some expansions and additions could be made, plus many more citations are required. That said I think the basic pattern of the article is already constructed and although there may be faults, I don’t think there is anything really drastically wrong as the article stands. Also, when it says “it may soon change significantly”, the way we talked about for you to suggest fairly small, incremental changes, posted on the talk page for a while so that others can help you may result in significant changes after some time but is not as likely to be as rapid as the tag maybe implies. We can always review the idea of putting the tag on later I guess.
Back soon, hopefully... Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi K., I've got to take my hat off regarding your productivity if you have 6 full pages of material already. However, if your intention is to post a massive document in a couple of weeks time I can foresee some problems with that. Firstly, if anyone else is to go through your work to assess it, it's going to be a massive job for them and we know that your writing can take a lot of work to sort it out. If you've taken weeks to write it it may take weeks for someone to assess it. As I've said, the time I can spend on Wikipedia has become limited and is likely to become even more so, particularly in the next couple of months as I'll be travelling quite a lot. I don't know if any other editors are interested in pitching in but so far there has been no other response to your most recent posts on the Kirkcaldy talk page. Also, I think it would be a better idea to post much smaller pieces of work, bit by bit as you complete them. That means it would be easier for other editors to assess them and/or work on them and it would also mean that if there are any fundamental problems with the way you are working on this, we can correct them early on. It would be a terrible shame if you did such a huge job only to find out that there are some problems with it that could have been avoided if you'd been making smaller, regular posts as you went along.
You made mention of Duncancumming as someone who may have an interest in all this. I though I might drop him a line to let him know in case he is interested and hadn't spotted your post at Kirkcaldy's talk. That said, I'm pretty sure he mentioned that his time on Wikipedia is also rather limited now. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just seen your message re your "Phase I" - thanks for letting me know. Best just to post it on the Kirkcaldy talk page; no need to duplicate on my talk page as I'll see it at Kirkcaldy anyway and it'll save any potential confusion. I saw the book by Eunson by the way and it says the first mention of Kirkcaldy was 1075 (not 1095 as you said) but nonetheless it is clearly different to that mentioned in the Encyclopedia by Keay and Keay. There's a Civic Society book which mentions 1075 too. None of the three indicate precisely what the primary source for their given date is though. I'll see if I can get hold of the three books and work out a wording accommodating the three texts and two dates. I'm not round much just now, by the way. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi K, just wanted you to know I hadn't (quite) disappeared from the face of the Earth yet. It's been preying on my mind that you've posted a pretty substantial proposal on the Kirkcaldy discussion page but with no response from anyone as yet. I'm back from travels for a short while but haven't had a chance to undertake much Wiki-wise and don't know when I will be able to. Anyway, all the best for just now - just wanted to say hi at least. ...by the way, also got some Kirkcaldy photos to add but don't hold your breath. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St Johns

No problem, always happy to help improve WP! By the way, quite a few of your refs had the URLs entered incorrectly, so they didn't work without some "investigation" - Just something to watch out for in future. Kind Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

right, i'll watch out for that. thanks Kilnburn (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Map of the Royal Burgh of Kirkcaldy 1824.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Map of the Royal Burgh of Kirkcaldy 1824.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:DSCN1488.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Hi Kilnburn!
We thank you for uploading Image:DSCN1488.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:DSCN1487.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Hi Kilnburn!
We thank you for uploading Image:DSCN1487.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:DSCN1498.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Hi Kilnburn!
We thank you for uploading Image:DSCN1498.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:DSCN1495.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Hi Kilnburn!
We thank you for uploading Image:DSCN1495.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:DSCN1519.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Hi Kilnburn!
We thank you for uploading Image:DSCN1519.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:DSCN1517.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Hi Kilnburn!
We thank you for uploading Image:DSCN1517.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:DSCN1507.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Hi Kilnburn!
We thank you for uploading Image:DSCN1507.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Mercat Centre, Kirkcaldy.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Mercat Centre, Kirkcaldy.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glenrothes

Could you please explain why you added a cleanup requirement to the Glenrothes Article? It has received an A-grade quality standard for its content and format. I do not understand why you felt it is a mess and requires a clean up while others feel it is a good article? It is by far the best written of all the Fife town articles.

195.27.12.180 (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

the introduction, 195.27..., makes another mention of the New Town (Scotland) Act 1946, which is already present in the first paragraph of the history section. a mention of the Rothes Pit is also made (which i believe is also mentioned in the history section). both are not really neccessary

overall, all it needs is a shorter introduction and yes, i do agree "it is by far the best written of all the Fife town articles". the Glenrothes article has seriously made me determined to improve the Kirkcaldy one, which i intend to surpass this one. Kilnburn (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The introduction was intended to summarise the main article. Someone could review the introduction and know a little about the background of the town. They could then get a more detailed analysis of the town by then going on and reading the main article. All good report formats are set out in this way.

I think you have a considerable task if the Kirkcaldy article is to be made anywhere near as good as the Glenrothes one. Good luck, I hope you achieve it. I look forward to reading it.

195.27.12.180 (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

well, thank you. i'm currently working on it and i know what is to be expected. anyway, i recently uploaded Kirkcaldy revamp (Phase 1) on the Kirkcaldy messageboard. if you care to have a look and if you wish, could you leave a comment. Kilnburn (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Kirkcaldy

I don't have so much time free atm, but I'll try to keep my eye on it. You can use your personal wikispace to make drafts btw. I.e. pages under User:Kilnburn/, such as User:Kilnburn/Kirkcaldy. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)