This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lighthouses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lighthouses and other water navigational aids 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.LighthousesWikipedia:WikiProject LighthousesTemplate:WikiProject LighthousesLighthouses
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns are about the "History" section, in particular the section that begins with the 4th sentence of the 5th paragraph "Up until the 23rd May 2017...." and which continues through the whole of the following paragraph "After the death.... statutory listed properties".
Most of this does not relate specifically to Noss Head Lighthouse. It is not referenced, it is mainly about the organisation The Unique Property Bulletin, and much of it is assertion or opinion.
I would suggest reverting to the previous edit of 15th December 2023, or creating a briefer version of the edit of 28th January 2024 which mentions the property developers' work, though I do not know if that is possible without a suitable independent reference which may be hard to find.
I am sorry to escalate this but I do not want to get into an edit-war with the most recent editor who also runs the Unique Property Bulletin. It seemed fairest to both of us to ask for an independent review by people who have the best interests of Lighthouse fans and Wikipedia readers in mind.
I agree with your concerns about this paragraph which is not written neutrally in the appropriate tone for an encyclopedia, and gives undue weight to one aspect of the building's history. @Russ McLean: if you have a conflict of interest, it would be better not to edit this article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Martin,
Wikipedia frequently asks for people to add facts to improve quality (especially “stub” articles on Wikipedia). Yes? No? Yet, with respect, when those people respond and add facts… dates + verifiable HM Land Registry numbers and source information etc., there seems to be an appetite by the speedy-deletion editors to extinguish all of those facts. May I ask: “Martin, have you ever been at the Noss Head Lighthouse Station & Tower?” If not, then what are your credentials for deleting facts about a subject where your knowledge appears minimal and in the manner you have chosen so to do? Surely it would be more constructive to actually EDIT rather than just MASS DELETE? There appears a propensity of Wiki editors who know little or nothing about a subject to embark upon a speedy-deletion route. I stopped donating to the Wikipedia Foundation because of the failure of some editors to help people of my proscribed category. Instead, a notorious tranche of editors appear to prefer the infamous “edit wars” form of approach on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia edit wars are horrendous and have wasted hundreds of hours of peoples’ time in a chronic “mass deletion” problem/addiction. Now we are at a phase where actual facts are being deleted for recreation or through wilful blindness. I do not have a Ph.D on how to edit Wikipedia. As a stroke-survivor, I believe it is reasonable for me to ask you and editors like you for “reasonable adjustments” as per those mandated in the U.K. terms of the U.K. Equalities Act 2010? I am more than happy to work WITH you to improve Wikipedia so it is accurate instead of an empty library of “stub” articles. I mentioned the not-for-profit organisation: Unique Property Bulletin Ltd” that was involved in renovating the WHOLE station as NOT to mention it could be complained at by your ilk as a “failure to disclose.” People cannot win at these feckless edit wars. Plus there are hundreds of photographs of the lighthouse buildings INCLUDING THE TOWER being renovated by the Northern Lighthouse BOARD, FROM THE FREE resource of the site owners (of the subject of this page). Unlike your assertion that the TOWER was not included during the renovation, I can provide facts that the NOSS HEAD LIGHTHOUSE TOWER WAS THE FOCUS OF THE RENOVATIONS. You infer I have a conflict of interest. There is no monetary, nor wish in that direction. Indeed I am endeavouring to disclose the source of material where I have unimpeachable knowledge of what has happened at this location in Wick, Caithness so the]at WIKIPEDIA IS ACCURATE. If people who know nothing of the subject on this page wish to just delete entire screeds instead of working with a contributors have factual knowledge and corroboration of the Wikipedia page subject’s renovation, surely that information is LOST as a result of speedy-deletion scribes? The educational merit of this site is reduced and eroded. Yes? No? Instead, this disabled-contributer gets randomly deleted and NO PROTOCOL AT WIKIPEDIA IS PROPERLY ACCESSIBLE TO COMPLY WITH THE U.K. EQUALITIES ACT 2010 as a disabled-friendly method to APPEAL such speedy-deletors. Apart from the ultra vires dissonance that is likely to form part of your rejoinder, the net result is Wikipedia loses eye-witness testimony and knowledge. Instead of being a trigger-happy notorious deletion-editor, perhaps some of the more enlightened editors might like to do the right thing (morally and legally) and help fellow contributors who are struggling with an overly complex “non-intuitive” system, and made worse by editor-inconsistency? If we just continue with your repeated mass deletion approach, then those very people who know what has happened at the subject/topic of a Wiki page, will become chronically alienated and discarded. That way lays the inevitable destination for Wikipedia, as has happened to many other internet Leviathans. They just disappeared into oblivion. I would NOT want that for Wikipedia. But some editors seem disposed to delete contributions without regard to the efforts made by disabled contributors. Thereby diminishing the educational worth of the Wikipedia platform. Regards, Russ McLean. Russ McLean (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do not ask people to add promotional material that is not actually about the subject of the article. I support the removal of your edit. Donald Albury01:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not responding to most of that wall of text. But in short: Noss Head Lighthouse is not the article for you to be editing. If you really want to get into editing Wikipedia then please choose a subject in which you do not have a conflict of interest, and there will be plenty of people who will gladly give constructive advice and help along the way. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
