This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Scotland This page is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland

Archives

Old discussions from merged noticeboard Archive 1, approximately September 2005 to December 2005 Archive 2, approximately January 2006 to February 2006 Archive 3, February 2006 to March 2006 Archive 4, March 2006 Archive 5, March 2006 to April 2006 Archive 6, March 2006 to August 2006 Archive 7, August 2006 to November 2006 Archive 8, November 2006 to June 2007 Archive 9, June 2007 to February 2008

This page has archives. Sections older than 91 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Per this previous thread, User:K1ngstowngalway1 continues to engulf articles, largely regarding Scottish Gaels, with masses of ill-considered material. I had been trying to keep an eye on certain affected articles but recently had little time or access for a couple of weeks and, on return, the mass of additions is simply too much to assess without the allocation of considerable time. I thus can't say for certain but there are indications that the edits display the very same problematic characteristics as before. The use of edit summaries is still vanishingly rare and I see that they have been picked up, for a recent example, for the use of peacock terms (thanks @Boredintheevening:), so it would seem likely that other characteristics continue as before, notably, and to quote myself from the previous thread, "the inclusion of large passages of material which, though arguably broadly related, do not really apply directly to the subject of the articles in question, making the articles bloated and unfocused", use of primary sources, assertions not supported by sources given, highly partial phrasing, the repetition of large sections of peripherally-related text across multiple articles (rather than, e.g. a link to a main article on the subject), as well as WP:ENGVAR and WP:MOS issues. I also suspect that material that had been in dispute and removed by myself and other editors has been restored but there is simply too much to keep up with it all. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent some time browsing the editor's history and taking stock of the ongoing problems. I'll try to keep an eye out for other instances. Completely concur with your assessment, and honestly quite baffled that this disruptive behaviour is persisting. Boredintheevening (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth taking this to the admin noticeboard? The editor does not seem to use edit summaries other than occasionally, which for an editor with 33k edits is a real problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I previously lodged Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_112#Bloating_and_neutrality,_largely_in_Scottish_articles and, as a consequence, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1163#Multiple_editing_issues,_largely_at_Scottish_articles_Slow_warring_at_Alexander_Cameron_(priest). These were to no particular effect, doubtless not helped by my repurposing the ANI, after a misunderstanding. I'm happy to support any further submission to ANI but, per lack of sufficient time for scrutiny of the campaign of changes, not sure I can devote time to leading one, currently. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a particularly disruptive edit and, no surprise, not a word in the summary. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left the editor a note re edit summaries. Let's hope they listen. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough but I won't hold my breath. If you search their talk page for the term "edit summar" (for singular and plural instances), mentions are in the 20s. From a previous version of the talk page in August (before the page history was lost in some puzzling attempt at redirection), further mentions of the term are in the 30s. In their previous incarnation as User talk:Kingstowngalway, 10 mentions on the talk page, stretching as far back as 2010. If this individual is genuine about their repeated resolutions to comply re edit summaries, there is a chronic competence issue.

That they are "trying to plough through a lot of information" for "those who use this site to seek the truth" encapsulates their campaign well, alarm bells ringing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And here's an example of WP:EDITORIALISING, typical of their edits. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding their latest resolution to use edit summaries, that's going about as well as their previous promises. Of the 85 edits since, 17 have had some sort of summary but many are as uninformative and misrepresenative of quite significant changes as "little fixes". Even that frequency is tailing off, with two in the last 37. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a further 63 edits since the above, a grand total of 2 with edit summaries. Time for that ANI, @Espresso Addict:? Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're currently encumbering the (previously fairly stable) articles on Jacobitism with their tendentious, overlinked stuff Svejk74 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting this @Svejk74:.

The above discussion, its predecessor and the repeated ignoring of multiple concerns raised on their talk page has prompted me to lodge this long overdue ANI. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user was blocked for a week as a consequence of the ANI but, now released from their block, has returned with indications they are often editing in a similar manner as before. The edit summary count at least is a bit higher, if still for a minority of edits (maybe 25% for the last few days). Mutt Lunker (talk)

I've lodged a new ANI. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To note, the user discussed above has been indeffed, so the tide is stemmed. Their editing was highly prolific and there are numerous articles, many, possibly most, in the scope of this project, featuring copious amounts of questionable material as a result of their efforts, going back years. Not sure of the best way of dealing with this but it will be a formidable task. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#MOS:POSTNOM for discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everybody, me and another user, Zacwill, do not agree whether having the {{Infobox waterfall}} in the Falls of Clyde article is useful for our readers. Instead of starting an edit war, I prefer asking an assessment to users expert and interested in this topic. You can look both at the history of the article and at the contributions of mine and of Zacwill to make your own idea on it. I'd be grateful of your contribution, which I'll accept whatever it will be.--Pampuco (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mingulay has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia and have drafted an article about American Caitlin McCarthy -- Draft:Caitlin McCarthy (writer) --who played a key role in securing the world's first government apology for DES. Former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon included DES in her historic apology to the victims of Scotland's forced adoption scandal. Since this is a significant moment in history, I’d love for the article to receive the attention it deserves. Could someone help review it to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s notability and content standards? Thank you! WistahHoney508 (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eilley Bowers has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All WP:Scotland members are invited to participate in The European Destubathon in April. Primary objective: Blast away as many of our 760,000+ Euro stubs as possible! Around £2300 available in Amazon voucher prizes which can be used to buy books for content, though it can also be treated as an editathon if you're not interested in competing! Minimum content to be added to each article just to ensure that they're over a stub, though longer expansions also welcome. A good chance to earn a few hundred for expanding many of our Scottish and European stubs. Previous contests were really enjoyable and I'm hoping this one will be too and help benefit the Scotland project too! Sign up if interested. Thanks! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]