Talk:Dunduff Castle

User 'dunduff' is currently the owner and was also the renovator of Dunduff ...and warmly welcomes contributions from others related to this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.197 (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC) --Dunduff (talk) 10:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)— Dunduff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Can anyone give me any advice on warnings at the top of the page? How do you get the page re-assessed after editing? How, and when, do these warning banners get removed? --Dunduff (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)— Dunduff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic .

As "the owner and... also the renovator of Dunduff", you have a massive conflict of interest and should not have created this article, nor should you be editing it; and you are spamming other articles with links to this one. With your COI, your role at this point should be limited to discussion of possible improvements, here on the talk page. I would suggest that you begin by providing proper information for the "references" currently in the article, currently so sketchy as to be nearly worthless, with none of the detail required by our standards (see WP:CITE). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments. Being new to Wikipedia I looked at similar articles related to Scottish castles, e.g. Law Castle in West Kilbride ...and used that as a starting point to build a stub on Dunduff Castle which I hoped would grow over time . The references that I gave relate to key documents describing details of Dunduff, e.g. the RCAHMS record for Dunduff; I would welcome some guidance on what you feel would be more acceptable. Your point regarding my unsuitability I struggle with ...however, if this is the case please either remove the content or give me advice on how to remove it. Regards, --Dunduff (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The article exists, as does the castle; silly to pretend otherwise. Begin by looking at the link provided above, to see examples of how a reference to a book should be formatted. Offer your suggestions for alterations and improvements here at this talk page; and don't edit other articles to link them to Dunduff. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC) (descendant of Lowlanders himself; hears Maxwelton's braes are bonnie)

I'm very curious about this discussion of conflict of interest, and have carefully read the wikipedia advice. I cannot understand that it is self-evident that the owner of a heritage asset should not write or contribute to articles concerning it, or link to articles directly concerning it from related articles - unless it could be demonstrated that the owner of the asset had a short term plan to realise the asset. If that were the case, then the article would even yet be sound and without COI if the article did not contain any unprovable assertions that were also designed to increase the asset's value.

It might be thought the mention of any commercial services provided at built heritage asset should not be mentioned, but notice that the Scottish Castles List table does include whether sites are open, and if so free or charging for entry. This much is surely reasonable. COI would appear only if services were mentioned (by any contributor), be it pony-trekking, adventure playground, rental, special events. - Unless there was a comprehensive article on "Pony trekking at Scottish Castles"...

I would just mention that I don't own a castle or any business, have not previously heard of Dunduff, and do not know its owner. I have only read the wikipedia advice on COI and am familiar with the concept in my professional life. I have been to many historic houses and often found the owners to be very knowledgeable, and have often seen respectable monographs or articles on material cultural written by private collectors. There is here some imbalance, anyone might depreciate a heritage asset by aesthetic criticism or comparison, yet an expert owner and wikipedean might be debarred from adding another view no matter how notable and well sourced, according to this strong COI viewpoint.

Equally, I haven't troubled to look to see why COI may have been suggested here, presumably now remedied, and make these as general remarks on COI in the heritage context. I think it cannot be too hard to spot what is not quite right in Scottish Castle article, and edit that away, without the need to invoke COI 87.115.55.221 (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

With such an important role in Ayrshire, Scottish and Irish history I could not resist carrying out a rewrite, incorporating the best of the old article. Rosser Gruffydd 19:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)