User talk:Ddstretch/Archive 2

wikEd

The wikEdlogo

Hi, I have seen that you are using the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.

wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus: • syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • more fixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages • convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjust the font size • and much, much more.

Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage. Often it is as simple as changing every occurrence of editor.js into wikEd.js on your User:YourUsername/monobook.js page.

Cacycle 22:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll give it a go to see if I can get it to work.  _DDS  talk 15:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dealing with vandals of Stoke-on-Trent

Thanks for the pointer. SoT (and the football team) does attract a fair bit of vandalism! Beest 17:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Lichfield (district) Etruria Hall South Staffordshire Cannock Chase (district) Wilnecote City of Chester Staffordshire Moorlands East Staffordshire Tunstall, Staffordshire Newcastle-under-Lyme (borough) Erewash Fenton, Staffordshire Upton, Cheshire South Derbyshire Flashcard Jishou Chester Cathedral The Laughing Clowns Stonydelph

Cleanup Decimal separator List of Portuguese given names P. V. Narasimha Rao Merge Potassium nitrate Lionhead Studios Northwich Add Sources Oakley Hall Leading small group Hopwood, Worcestershire Wikify Jugurthine War Niujie Mosque Rainworth Expand Comparison of web servers Immediate Action Unit China Western Development

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Chester entry

Thanks for your comment. I personally don't know much about England, or Chester or the surrounding area. I made an edit of a list that I saw was confusing. The list showed a location then a comma then another location or several. this continued on almost every line of the list. I dropped the commas and put every location on it's own line. I do agree that the locations that are part of the city of Chester belong in that area and the locations that are part of the greater county should be left. I would love to help but I wouldn't know where to start. It might be better that you make the changes you were talking about. If there is anything that I can do to help let me know. photodude 01:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the new list is more logic. I think it should be carried over to all the UK county and city pages. but, I wonder if some people will see it as a formatting mistake. the commas were bad, bullets are better; do you think there might be an even better way to show this relation in the locations? Thanks for makeing the changes. photodude 01:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think people are working on this problem in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK subdivisions. As for how the formatting is done, I think bullets make it look better, speaking for myself. I don't think there is any hard and fast rule about it, though.  _DDS  talk 01:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism

Hi there; I saw your accidental page about an IP vandal. Do you know the page WP:AIV?--Anthony.bradbury 22:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I have used that page before (WP:AIV), but I somehow got to the wrong page and got mixed up when using it. I'll report the ipaddresses where you have suggested. Thanks again.  _DDS  talk 22:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reported the ipaddresses at WP:AN/I. Once again, thanks.  _DDS  talk 22:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Places of interest

Just a pointer but take a look at Cornwall with the logos for English Heritage etc. They work very nicely. Regan123 00:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - they look good, and I think we should use them on Cheshire-related articles (even if the proposed project does not get off the ground.)  DDStretch  talk 16:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheshire WikiProject

Nice idea. I've joined. I'm starting a few stubs on Cheshire villages, feel free to help me expand them... I'd appreciate it! --SunStar Net^talk 02:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome, and thanks for joining. Would it be an idea to list what you have added in the appropriate place on the project's talk page? You may get a lot more other people joining in and helping that way. I'll help as well, of course!  DDStretch  (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Devon project and Borrowing, etc

I've borrowed your project page to start my Wikipedia: Wikiproject Devon page. hope you don't mind... Totnesmartin 18:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Please feel free to take and make use of anything about the [[WP:Cheshire|Cheshire WikiProject}} you feel would be useful. If you improve what you borrow, may be we will come back and re-borrow the improved one from you! Seriously, anything that can help us both improve the coverage of our respective counties can, I think, be shared with no problem. Congratulations on getting the project up and running. Already, I can see some things that might be useful for us to borrow!  DDStretch  (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity... Are you including former parts of Cheshire, such as the Wirral? Totnesmartin 01:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We haven't explicitly discussed that yet, but I think it is assumed that at the moment we won't be. It will take all our efforts to get articles for the current ceremonial county of Cheshire up to standard.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Lyme Handley

As far as I know and according to the Macclesfield BC website there still is a parish called Lyme Handley. There isn't exactly a settlement called that as it is the area which is between Disley and Pott Shrigley - mainly Lyme Park. -- Phildav76 22:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've realised now that the map is partly in error here, and reverted my edit to the list.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that guys.JFBurton 19:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Villages in Cheshire

I note you've added templates to a couple of Crewe & Nantwich village articles I started. You might like to note that a page for Marbury (in your template as Marbury cum Quoiseley) already exists. Espresso Addict 00:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. However, the list I've been working on so far are for civil parishes within Cheshire, and Marbury may be but one settlement within the civil parish of Marbury cum Quoiseley. I need to check. If Marbury is the only settlement within Marbury cum Quoiseley there are a number of easy ways of resolving the issue (redirects, etc). I've written about this kind of issue at length on the Cheshire WikiProject's talk page.

In many cases, people have not distinguished enough between a settlement and a civil parish. When a civil parish contains more than one settlement, it becomes difficult to manage for all sorts of reasons unless one has separate articles for civil parishes and for settlements (categories of settlements versus categories of villages, etc is but one; the parish being named differently from the settlement it contains is another, albeit minor one, solvable by redirection). I think we have effectively reached a consensus in the project about separating these out, as a result of the information given on the talk page, and some previous precedents set by, for example, the Cornwall project work. As a few examples in Cheshire, the civil parish of Haslington contains the settlements: Haslington, Oakhanger, Winterley, and (part of) Wheelock Heath. As another Anderton with Marbury contains two settlements: Anderton, and Marbury. The person who was writing about this last civil parish had a difficulty and the solution has been to write about the civil parish separately from its contained settlements. We think this is a more logical solution which fits in more with the hiearchy of local government within Cheshire. We are still in the process of trying to sort the details out, but I want to thank you for letting me know about this, and Marbury will be referred to and linked to, certainly, if the article about the civil parish is written. Otherwise, we may edit the entry for Marbury a little to have a section purely about the parish, a section about its settlement, and then add a redirection to it for "Marbury cum Quoiseley".  DDStretch  (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad you are on top of this issue. I think people are more likely to search for places than parishes, but as long as the two link/redirect properly and there isn't too much duplication of material there should be no problem. In this case in particular, I'm not aware of there being much of a settlement at Quoisley; as I recall, there's a couple of houses, but it's mainly meres, marsh, woodland & farmland. Espresso Addict 05:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Wiki Project

Chill Out About It. I thought that if you were so interested in the Cheshire one, mabye you would be in the Derbyshire one too. I still hope you can at least pretend to be interested, just to help it get started.JFBurton 16:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks for cleaning up that vandalism. That was pretty extreme. JFBurton 08:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thats a good idea. I saw that strange vandalism on your page, couldnt get my head round it, and I cant get my head round the fact that the same IP vandalises me and Billlion's user page. Well, I can get my head round it, but dont understand why. And the person who vandalised my user page obviously knows something about my REAL life, because he mentioned a friend of mine. If you look in my page history, you will see. The same user also knows that Billlion bought a range rover. JFBurton 17:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

waverton, cheshire

that wasnt me it was my friend who did all the 'work' on the page i apologise for him, i didnt realise he was on my computer. as for jack woods, i admit that was me and have taken on your wishes and shall not do this again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.244.67 (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Vandalism

I see that IP is still vandalising your page. I was about to revert it but you came along at just the right time. ~ JFBurton 18:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It appears to be a reaction to a slightly more "sophisticated" vandalism I reversed a short time ago to Fallibroome High School (you may have heard of the school). An anon user vandalised it, then a non-anon user appeared to revert it, but really just added more vandalism which was prepared for in advance (you can find out the gory details of this if you look at who did what and when, and my reports of this, in the logs.)  DDStretch  (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

80.47.134.29 has vandalismed my page again. Its very strange what he does. Can you explain it. I know Fallibroome High School, its on the far side of Macclesfield, near Prestbury. ~ JFBurton 09:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That same IP has now done it again today to your discussion page, I reverted it. This time he claims he wants your babies. ~ JFBurton 20:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Dee bridge disaster

The internal reference comes in my Wiki article, but I have also also added a paper we wrote some time ago about the accident. I will also add my forthcomng book, when I get a copy from my publisher.Peterlewis 17:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Argh! Hello, thanks for your reply. Don't add a reference to your own book, as wikipedia has a policy about No Original research (WP:NOR), which I think is a bit over the top, but which is rigorously enforced. It is why I have never edited any articles about my own areas of scientific research and specialty, even though the existing articles on the subject are quite poor. Get someone else to add your book as a reference. I don't unfortunately, see this policy as ever changing really, which is very very sad.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Greater Manchester dynamic map

Hi Ddstretch! Thanks for the contact and feedback! It seems the map have been well recieved, but with a few pointers to consider.

I think you raise an important suggestion about the pointer. I hadn't considered this and presumed this formed part of a universal (or WikiWide) icon. I'll contact the UK infobox architects and find out what options we have.

If you like the GM map, I'd be happy to look into the possibility of a Cheshire based one for your WikiProject. Once I have the source material it only takes me a few hours. Jhamez84 19:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And now you have one - may have errors as my material for the county is not as comprehensive. Regardless, its here for peer review if you are interested? Would be nice if we can at least have a standard style of map for the North West to begin with. Jhamez84 00:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've missed a borough boundary between Vale Royal and Congleton! I'll pop this in along with anything else you suggest. Hope it is suitable for at least an article if not the infobox. Jhamez84 00:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to help out. I've ammended a few errors I made (such as removed a stretch of motorway I'd seemed to have invented, and extended the River Dee to its correct course. Hope it proves to be useful. Jhamez84 12:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Rolex Copies

I recently added to you article on Rolex copies. I was surprised to find it was marked at vandalism. My cotribution towards your page was topical, informative and contained nothing offencive! Just what makes you think that is vandalism? My contribution was a correct fact, I have been to Canal Street in New York City, and i have seen these copies. One thing is for certain, they are a damn site better than the picture you provided. My information, was thus more factual than your's! Yet I am still cautioned for vandalism! Thanks fot nothing! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oli120792 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm sorry if you feel I reverted an edit that was not vandalism, please add the material again if you feel it is justified, and it can be verified, but realise that it will always be better to safeguard your edits by providing verification (see [[WP:V}} and WP:Cite for pointers to this.)  DDStretch  (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sandbach School

I reacently read an article about Sandbach School, I edited a bit on your page about the current head master. Samuel Smith is not the current head master, Peter Wiles is. I know this as I attend this school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oli120792 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Once again, I'm sorry if you feel I reverted an edit that was not vandalism, please add the material again if you feel it is justified, and it can be verified, but realise that it will always be better to safeguard your edits by providing verification (see [[WP:V}} and WP:Cite for pointers to this.) Perhaps there is a website for Sandbach School that you can cite for verification?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Warned Yet Again!!

Yet again I recieved a warning about vandalism, the source...why of course you! I think you will find that i removed my previous "vandalism" from the Haslington page, yet i still recieve warning about how I am vandalising. Maybe you should stop and think!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oli120792 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Your latest edit is vandalism. It was not me who reverted it. You should be careful. You should edit appropriately and carefully, and not. I note that you have reverted it yet again even now as I am typing this message.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I now see what has happened, and I see that you have only yourself to blame for the confusion. You vandalised the entry, and then removed it whilst another user was attempting to correct your vandalism. Thereafter this user has reverted what he thought was you adding your original vandalism back again, but it had the effect of re-adding your vandalism. I am only a later reverter to this. This whole mess has been solely made possible by your original vandalising action. I suggest you do not vandalise again, or else people will just lose patience with you. I apologise for not spotting the mess you brought about before now. I will be more careful in future. I suggest you are too.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Haslington

Thanks for the heads up. I'll watch that. Got caught out the same way in another aricle. Oops. --Richhoncho 21:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Chester link?

Can I just ask why you removed the link to the English in Chester Language School website from the Chester article? Surely the link to "Chester & North East Wales Organists' & Choirmasters' Association" is also an "outside commercial activity" and their link should therefore also be removed? Giving that Wikipedia is used to find out more about Chester, and that many visitors to Chester are foreign students, then surely a link to such a website would be useful? Just curious as to why the other link remains present really, when this one was removed... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Njdayuk (talk • contribs) 14:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks you for the comment. I have missed that other link, and will now go and remove that one too. Wikipedia is not a mere list of links, and external links should ideally be tied into relevant mentions within the text (see WP:NOT). If you feel that the language school link is justified, then why not add a short section mentioning Chester's growing role as a center where Nnon-Engloish speaking students can learn English? The link might be justifiable then, but realise that favouring one language school over another would not be a good idea.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:75.67.83.22

This is the first time this user has been blocked, so 24h is the standard. The length of blocks increase if this does not persuade them to stop vandalising pages. TimVickers 19:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Chester City Council

Thanks for your message. I think the confusion may have arisen from the differences between the 'City of Chester' Parliamentary Constituency and 'Chester City', which is a different area under which the council is based. Thanks again. Seivad 09:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

RFD for Boston

I don't see a problem with you moving the RFD template back above the redirect. As you noted, the point of having the template above the redirect is to stop people from moving on to the intended target and giving them the option to discuss where the link should point. --Bobblehead 19:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that Boston in England or America? JFBurton 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Addition of {{otheruses4}} template on Psychiatry linking to Anti-psychiatry

I will be removing this otheruses4 template. The purpose of this template is to help a reader to find an article with a similar name, which may be confused with the article they have ended up at. For example, I've used similar templates at The Fordham, The Pinnacle, and Fordham Company. If someone was looking for the Fordham Brewing Company, but only knew "Fordham Company" and ended up at this Chicago real estate developer, right on the top they can get what they are looking for. I feel like someone looking for Anti-psychiatry won't be confused if they type in "Psychiatry" and arrive at "Psychiatry." If they are looking for Anti-psychiatry, that is what they will type in. I hope that makes sense. I feel like this template was used just to get an Anti-psychiatry link listed prominently in the article... (I may, of course, be wrong). Chupper 14:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message on my talk page. My motivation was not just to make Anti Psychiatry have a prominent place on the psychiatry page. It was done in good faith, and not motivated in the way in which you seemed to feel it was done (see WP:AGF). I put it there to deflect the sometimes out-of-place virulent criticisms of psychiatry that have appeared recently on that page. I worked for over 17 years in an academic Department of Psychiatry of a UK Medical School (though I am a research psychologist), and published many research papers in various fields of psychiatry, and so I hope you can understand that it was not my intention to rubbish psychiatry at all.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I've just been so skeptical with those massive edits yesterday I've been jumping the gun on a few occasions. I now understand your motivation. Again, sorry, and I'm glad we have someone like you onboard - a research psychologist - quite cool. Chupper 16:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I think I didn't recognize your name. Your signature always makes me think about the "green box guy" and not "ddstretch" (as I saw on the edit history page). Had I associated you with that edit, I probably wouldn't have made that final comment. You have some real solid edits. Anyway, I'll see you around. Chupper 16:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: vandalism

It is not vandalism. It is the truth. You may fear the truth; I do not. I pity you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fmorton (talk • contribs) 10:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Leniency against persistent vandals

A few days ago, you participated in a discussion concerning a loophole in the present policy which is allowing persistent vandals to evade blocks by spacing out their disruptive edits. You might be interested in knowing that I have opened an RfC concerning the issue; if you wish to participate in the discussion, please do so here. CounterFX 18:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Please ignore my last post. CounterFX 22:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject England

Hello! You have probably noticed that WikiProject England has been inactive recently and I and other members are working on making it active again and getting more members to join. I am kindly asking for your help tagging articles for class and importance using {{WPE}}, their are literally thousands of articles at Category:England and all of its sub-categories which urgently need tagging ad your help is needed! For more information about theses templates please see the Project Page and I hope you are enjoying being a member!! Tellyaddict 21:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well we could agree on different ratings for articles but I have been on a few article talk pages in the past and the ratings have been disagreed. I think what we could do is just agree to disagree (???) and possibly in the future get a second persons opinion. What do you think??? Tellyaddict 16:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagreements in WikiProject ratings

I saw your comment on User:Tellyaddict's talk page about different WikiProjects disagreeing with article assessments. Usually when I am assessing pages and I come to a page that has an older, lower, quality rating, I just change the rating to reflect what I feel is the articles current status. I think quite often it is the case that assessments have been made in the past and articles have been improved afterwards without being re-assessed. I agree that it would seem strange for two different WikiProjects to have different ratings for an article, and in a case where an editor comes to a page that has been assessed recently and disagrees with the assessment, s/he should try to resolve it with the original assessor rather than just add their own, different, assessment. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 19:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Runcorn and Cheshire

Runcorn

I saw your comments on Talk:Runcorn and felt a twinge of guilt about the mediocre quality of the article. So rather than playing about with new biographies I think I ought to do something to "improve" my home town. When I first saw it last November it had a curtailed history, a lot of chat and a long list of Chinese take-aways! The link you provided is helpful, although it will be difficult to live up to all it requires. There are not many UK towns with featured articles but I found Sheffield and this may provide a model (unless you have a better idea). So I've started by extending the lead a little. All comments about this and future developments would be greatly appreciated as I still feel rather inexperienced in what Wiki wants.

Cheshire

I have been adding some 'Notable people' but it seems to me that we could fill pages with names that someone or other feels are 'notable'. Would it not be better here just to provide a link to Category:People from Cheshire as we do on the portal rather than have an enormous list; or I suppose we could have a link to a List of notable people from Cheshire. It is good to see the efforts you are making to improve the quality of the information about the county - keep it up! Peter I. Vardy 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my user talk page. I've started work on it with an expanded 'lead', a start at a 'Geography' section, and a modified and referenced 'History' section. In my sandbox is a start on a 'Present day' section. I fear that much of the chatty material on the page may have to go (and what reaction that will provoke remains to be seen!) but maybe some of it can be included in a 'Culture' section. Your comments, suggestions and revisions will be welcomed as always. Peter I. Vardy 22:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Strategy games

Hello Ddstretch.

WikiProject Strategy games has finished it's first collaboration: Risk (game) (). We are now asking for nominations and input for a new one. Please voice your ideas at the talk page.

Clyde (talk) and WikiProject Strategy games.

England

They are using two different templates! No wonder it's a bit confused. I left a note for them. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheshire map

You mentioned something about a Cheshire map? These maps are really taking off!!! I did produce a map a while back for the WikiProject you're involved with, however, the consensus (I'm beginning to hate that term) was to alter them slightly.

I have the original files on my PC; I'm more than happy to produce a map like the others thus far.

I don't want to have a monopoly on the maps by anymeans, but it would be nice if they are consistent in style, at very least for England! Jhamez84 17:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Heads up, Re: your post on WP:AN

You may want to take a look at your recent post on WP:AN, I've responded to it. See WP:AN#Harrassment by posting my real name and my mother's maiden name. --Deskana (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If the user in question ever does something similar again, please e-mail me and I'll handle it. They got a final warning off me for it. I don't care how easy it is to obtain the information- he clearly did it in an attempt to scare you, there was no purpose to knowing your name in that argument. --Deskana (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

An apology

Please except my apologies for posting your personal information. I should have gone a different manner to let you know that your info could have been used by unscrupulous people who could have used it. Again, please accept my apologies. Cwb61 20:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for excepting my apology. It was a foolish thing and am very sorry for what I did. I have no intention at all of repeating that sort of thing again. Cwb61 14:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

How was my edit to Wilmslow vandalism? The section was for notable residents, the person in question was featured heavily in the news, thus making her a notable resident. I'm confused as to how it was "defamatory" or "totally inappropriate". If you believe it to be defamatory, perhaps it should have been changed to NPOV instead of being deleted outright. Would it have been inappropriate if I had included a link to one of the hundreds of news stories about the person in question? I don't see how the edit is "vandalism" if it is valid information that pertains to the subject of the page. 71.233.46.116 00:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: I made the information less biased-sounding and added a link to a newspaper article about the story. Is that better? 71.233.46.116 00:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Runcorn

Following your assessment report on Talk:Runcorn I have more or less re-written the article in what I hope is a more acceptable style. When you have a moment I should be pleased if you would have a look at it and advise on how it's going and what else might need to be done. Thanks for your stimulation in this respect. Peter I. Vardy 14:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Would this be helpful?...

Was this what you had in mind earlier in the week? Would it be suitable for infoboxes in the county? Failing this, some other use on an article? I've broke the mold for working with metropolitan counties, seeing as the Cheshire WikiProject is one of the best, hope it helps. Jhamez84 23:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that would help a lot, I think. May be what is needed is an exmaple of how it would work on an infobox for a given place within Cheshire, so that it can be "sold" to the project? What do you think?  DDStretch  (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

South Yorkshire Sheffield WikiProject has also requested for a dynamic map locater to demonstrate it's usage!... I find them incredibly difficult to set up (I'm a rather weak mathematican).

I'll post to the UK template talk page to highlight that I may need some community support with the new (and old - Dudley seems misplaced) maps. I'm glad you and Sheffield are also pleased with these maps. Jhamez84 14:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the sandbox tests are good, but a little off. I think it's the |bottom= field that needs to be changed to drag the pointer more southerly. It's looking good though, I'll see if I can help with the input. Jhamez84 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

On another note, I noticed the comments on the Middlewich talk page. I think a WP:UKCITIES, WP:UKCOUNTIES and WP:UKSETTLEMENTS set of guidelines need to be established sooner rather than later. I don't think the WP:CITIES translates particularly well to UK settlements, and, I think that many UK city and town articles are maturing, but in different directions - we need a consistent approach - I think. Any thoughts? Jhamez84 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks again for the contact! Sorry for the delay, I have been meaning to respond.... I'm glad you agree with the WP:UKCITIES idea. I think it is the right step forwards. We only have Sheffield as a UK city with FA status, but even that could be removed reading some of the text!

You raise very valid points with regards to city status in the UK; I can think of extremes of Salford/City of Salford, St Davids, and York. Yes they will require different approach as you rightfully say, but the WP:CITIES guidelines are just too Americanised to help foster these articles's growth.

Any ideas how best to go about this? We may also wish to look at the use of {{UK cities}} and {{Scottish cities}} as part of this possible guide. Jhamez84 15:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the word "cities" is preventing sensible progress. As you say, settlements which form cities in UK are very variable entities. I suspect that USA editors understand "cities" in a different way than we do in UK. The settlements we call cities merge in many ways with towns, as towns do with villages. Perhaps we should have one overall set of guidelines for UK settlements of all sizes, to be modified according to their individual characteristics (they are only GUIDElines after all). It's a bit clumsy but WP:UKSETTLEMENTS might be the optimum title. Do you think the Runcorn article covers all the points which should be covered for a town of this type? I intend to do some work on demographics for Halton (borough) and make a link to this from the section in the Runcorn article. Peter I. Vardy 17:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

We do have a UK settlements guide already, but it is probably more suited to towns, villages and localities smaller than cities. I think the aim of a UK cities guideline would help explain the global significance of these places, as opposed to a national one, with this reflected in the text of the article.

I think also the guidelines would broadly set out just three things (they spring to mind for me); headings (and order in which they come), the content of the lead (it would probably need mentions of charters, and wider Urban Areas for example), and sub/daughter articles that should be included. We may also wish to include guidelines on images, image galleries, and links and descriptions of a city's subdistricts/localities.

Any thoughts? Jhamez84 18:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheshire Map

Have tried to recalbirate using one of the methods recommended. What do you think now? Some locations seem dead on but others seem a little out. Pit-yacker 21:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheshire project CFDs

Hello. The Cheshire project CFDs have been closed. I've created the new categories and updated {{WikiProject Cheshire}}. The articles will automatically recategorise themselves over the next little while and when they are all done the old categories will be deleted. If there are any problems, or I screwed anything up, please let me know. All the best! Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatrist

Thanks for your support on that split of the article. I was curious on your thoughts of that new article. Do they represent a worldwide view? Your thoughts would be appreciated. Take care sir! Chupper 21:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Strategy games

Hello Ddstretch.

WikiProject Strategy games finished it's first collaboration on Risk (game). We have voted for possible candidates for the next collaboration, and three finalists have been selected:

1. . Stronghold (2001 game)
2. . Age of Empires
3. . Age of Empires II

If possible, please vote here on which of these articles to collaborate on. Thank you.

WikiProject Strategy games

UK geography positive steps

Hi, this is great stuff. I'm really happy that some leadership has been taken in moving these suggestions forwards.

If we are to begin scribing some ideas, I suppose the first step for a WP:UKCITIES guide would be an original proposal page we could set up; we could outline draft guidelines before requesting wider input.

I'm also mindful of outlining the remit of the guidelines (will it, if not intitially then in the long-term, pertain just to cities, or to other places, such as counties?).

I think settling on what the lead should include and the various headings of an article would be the right first and main steps to take.

There are a few issues we need to work out with regards to cities, and city districts (by which I mean the Salford/City of Salford, Leeds/City of Leeds problem). As the latter are local government areas I would argue they have different headings, from different guidelines (I can't see this being contentious).

I also think that settlements without city status should continue to use the UK settlements guide (albeit if they are amended/updated accordingly), but these guidelines should be amalgamated as part of this set of data.

Also, (as if this isn't enough to ponder upon), I'm mindful that the UK infobox place has yet to complete it's rollout accross Scotland and Northern Ireland. Jhamez84 00:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've uploaded a newer, more detailed, and hopefully more accurately rendered version of the Cheshire infobox map. It should hopefully fix some of the discrepencies seen in the testing phase. You may have to refresh your browser to see the changes. Hope it helps! Jhamez84 00:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Another look at Runcorn

Thanks again for your comments and for your advice on adding the accession dates for web references (this is the sort of advice I need). It will be a bit of a nuisance but most of the dates will be recent and I should be able to get them through the 'History' page. When I've done that I'll leave it for a few days (so that it is 'stable') and then have a go for Good Article status. It least it will give me (and maybe other project members) a better idea of what 'they' want.

Regarding the New Cheshire Atlas it is available only through the Cheshire Record Office (CRO). It was also available at Booklands in Bridge Street, Chester but they have, I think, closed down. You can get it through the CRO's online shop via CRO. At £25 plus postage it's a bargain for people like us.

Incidentally it would be good to have your first name if that's OK and I shall feel more comfortable in addressing you. Best wishes, Peter. Peter I. Vardy 16:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks David for your assessment. After a few days stability I'll offer it for Good Article assessment. Peter. Peter I. Vardy 15:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Advice wanted about Deva Victrix and large amounts of unsourced and unreferenced material

This is in re your comment Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Advice_wanted_about_Deva_Victrix_and_large_amounts_of_unsourced_and_unreferenced_material.

1. Have you resolved this? If not, have you (or someone in the Cheshire WikiProject project) found/called/contacted the sources listed at the bottom, or contacted (Talk or email this user) the responsible contributors?? If that's not possible, the article is not notable without sources(see WP:N#Notability_is_not_subjective), and should be tagged {{notability}} right on the front page, and the author(s) advised, per WP:N. Without verifiable sources, you can tag with {{verifiability}} per WP:V. Either of these will put the original or main contributor on notice, puts the article into policy track for deletion eventually (NOT immediately), and puts readers on notice that the material is suspect until verifiably sourced.
2. Shorter headings next time, eh? --Lexein 18:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Troll boxes

could you not have made this comment on my userpage rather than Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) talk page? It would have been more constructive to raise this issue at my talk page. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 22:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Chester Wiki

David. This is a difficult one. My initial query was to find out something about it, not necessarily to delete the links. In fact in some respects it is quite impressive; if only the editors of Wikipedia had a similar degree of drive our own articles would be much better. Of the arguments expressed on Wikipedia talk:External links#The Chester Wiki: Appropriate or not? the ones I find most persuasive are those by Purpleprose. I have looked at the criteria at Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided and the only doubtful one is 12 which refers to "open wikis" etc. But what is an open wiki? We seem to be no more and no less "open" than the Chester Wiki. It would be better to work with the Chester Wiki people than against them (their hearts are in the right place and there is not too much "rubbish" on it (yet)). It is in a pity that we have set up a degree of resentment at an early stage in their development (albeit unintentionally). My first thought was to restore the link(s) with a caveat that their articles were not referenced in a Wikipedia style. But then I looked at what should be some of our prime articles and neither are they referenced. So that would be sort of "holier than thou" situation. An additional reason why we must get our own house in order! Perhaps a compromise solution might be for you to contact Purpleprose, give praise where praise is due, and say that for the moment you have to take the advice you have been given not to have links to them. However we would keep in touch with their progress and when point 12 is better satisfied (stability and substantial number of editors) review the situation. (Some silly articles are starting to appear for example this one.) Hope this is helpful.

I have the feeling that our Chester article will have to be (more or less) completely rewritten (as I had to do with Runcorn). Incidentally I should have thought that as the county city the article would be of high rather than mid importance; it must at least equate with Sunderland, the example given at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/Assessment. Best wishes (and good luck). Peter I. Vardy 09:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

David. I like your reply on Talk:Chester, particularly the invitation for them to join us. Well done. Peter I. Vardy 15:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Runcorn GA

David. Thanks for your message. You received the news before me! I had expected a list of 'on hold' tasks to do before it was approved (if then). It's good for Runcorn to be the first in something - doesn't happen often. At least it gives us a model for what they want - or was I lucky to get a British (I assume) assessor rather than one from USA? (as happened with Middlewich). Do you think we should see what a peer review might come up with? And thanks for the encouragement, help with maps, etc.

I'm now going to work on Widnes, mainly because I have borrowed the standard history books from our local historians; and then we really need to do something with Halton. I think I'll leave Chester and Cheshire to others because I don't have access to some of the neccessary references. Peter. Peter I. Vardy 13:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Warrington

Sorry, I was busy when I got your message and had forgotten about it by the time I'd finished working. I've replied at Talk:Warrington. Thanks, Joe D (t) 21:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How is my addition vandalism?

I changed the first line of Ellesmere Port to say that Ellesmere Port was actually a port with a dock. How is this vandalism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.46.119 (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

thanks

Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.46.119 (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Curious question

Why did you delete all the information except the last warning from the User talk:71.232.174.171 page? --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 21:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I had no idea I had - to me, until I looked just now, I entered the only information on that page. I don't know how the end result has come about, or how I ended up seemingly deleting all the information you had added. May be we should agree to revert it to the version you produced? As I said, I don't know how what I did caused the deletions, and it seems very odd.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes - please revert it or attempt to revert it to the appropriate version. Thank you. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 13:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Burton, Cheshire (times 2!)

Whoops! Sorry about that, thanks for pointing out my error and correcting it. Thought I'd got it nailed after lots of websearching and map-reading over the last few hours to finally decipher which local authorities Burton and Puddington are in. Snowy 1973 22:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Have moved Burton, Cheshire to Burton, Ellesmere Port and Neston and created a disambiguation page. Snowy 1973 22:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Importance

David. Just to let you know what I have been up to. While having a new central heating boiler fitted I spent some of the time in doing Cheshire assessments. In doing so I over-assessed the importance of some of the priorities, thinking that the importance was to the world rather than to the project. So I have modified (reduced) some of these assessments. Hope it does not cause any problems. Peter I. Vardy 19:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

David. Thanks for your message. We seem to be getting into a 'k*******s in a twist' situation with the ChesterWiki people - a pity we cannot work together, although I think their standards of referencing will never be up to what Wikipedia expects. I suspect that the only solution to the Cheshire/Chester/Chester Castle problem will be rather what I have done with Runcorn and Widnes, that is, effectively to start from scratch. We really need someone with a knowledge of these subjects and access to the relevant reference books and articles to do a really good job on them.

You will have noticed that I have nominated Widnes as a GA nominee. You may be interested to see from Talk:Widnes#Too many subsections that the very person who passed the Runcorn article as a GA with a comment of "great work" has criticised the sectioning of the Widnes article - even though the latter is based on the model of the former. My comments in reply are on User talk:Epbr123#Widnes. Wikipedia needs to be reasonably consistent; then we can use GAs and FAs as models for our own use, surely. By the way. don't take Wikipedia too seriously - it is of course serious, but we must not let it interfere with or upset our own (real) lives. Best wishes and keep up all the excellent work you are doing. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire is improving and will improve out of all recognition as we work on it. Peter I. Vardy 21:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Runcorn peer review

David. The comments to date seem favourable and helpful here. I am interested in the comment about the lead. This is not my own contribution, I agree it is confusing, and although it is referenced, I can find no way of confirming it. In any case, is there any point in including an estimated population of part of the town? My inclination is to delete it and combine the first two paragraphs. Do you agree? The other remarks are to do with editing, which can be dealt with. I also intend to delete the word "large" from the first sentence; the town is not really that large and I think this is an example of a 'redundant' word. Peter I. Vardy 20:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

David. Thanks for your advice and support on the Runcorn lead. I shall modify it. You may be interested to read the discussion about subdivisions and other matters relating to UK settlements at Talk:Widnes#Too many subsections. Peter. Peter I. Vardy 10:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Halton Castle GA

David. I'm sure you advised me to submit Halton Castle for GA review, although I cannot now find the reference. You may have noticed that, after some editing, it has been accepted as a GA. Without your encouragement I would not have had a go, so many thanks for that. Peter I. Vardy 21:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Herts

If you are interested, i have decided to try and start again. The proposal has been restored per my request and i have started to set up the project at User:Simply south/WPHerts. Simply south 18:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for showing interest anyway. I have decided to make it go live. Simply south 17:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A balanced view of Henbury?

Interested to know why you chose to remove my factual additions to the article on Henbury High School. I found the article gave the school a rose-tinted perspective which, as a parent at the time, I did not see in reality.

Thanks for the comment. I removed your additions because they were unverified. If they are factual, then wikipedia requires that they be also verifiable by being able to provide citations. On considering your message, I went back and saw that much of the article also contained value-judgements that do not really fit in with the aims of wikipedia, and so I've now removed the ones I spotted as well as added requests for verification and citations where appropriate, and where verifiabilty would seem to be a simple task for someone. I hope you now agree that the article presents just a bald statement of facts. Work is still needed to provide verification for them. Any new facts added should routinely also include the appropriate citations (WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:References may help a little here.)  DDStretch  (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Crewe Schools

I can make the changes to the School section that you discussed. I was using the Crewe addresses as a guide when I added them. Would you suggest I write the civil parish or village name after the name of the school? Jamesb1 12:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Blaster Bates

Hi, I saw a post of yours in another users talk, in reference to Blaster bates I was wondering if there was any chance you could get in touch? I am putting together a blaster bates tribute site, any new information would be much appreciated, The fact your father went to school with him is very interesting. The email address and forum are on the site at www.blasterbates.info (not trying to get a free plug for the site, I just don't want to post the email address for spam reasons). many thanks Jay

Compass table

Thanks for your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chew Stoke I've done the compass table as you suggested but can't get it to align - any ideas?— Rod ^talk 09:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this can be achieved. How about asking User:Lupin who first wrote the template and seems to have edited and updated it a bit?  DDStretch  (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I've left a message for User:Lupin.— Rod ^talk 10:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Birchington-on-Sea

Should I include a compass table if the village is neighboured by an unparished town? Epbr123 09:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point — you could try to add the town name followed by (unparished), though why not try it out in a sandbox a number of ways and look at it, and then use what looks best?  DDStretch  (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello there!

Hello Ddstretch! Very nice to have some contact from yourself! I hope all is well. It is almost good to be back!!

I have recently started to edit again, and found the issue of the United Kingdom vs ENG/SCT/WLS/NI has become a little one sided on Wikipedia. We've got a very strong, but very loud Scottish editting team who I don't think are helping here too much on this issue either (just read the lead of Scotland and how it is compromised).

I've found that there are massive discrepencies on many articles - people being described as having English nationality (even Cornish), the union flag being removed on the basis of WP:FLAGCRUFT but the Saltire etc being promoted elsewhere, delinking of the article United Kingdom (and even stuff like United Kingdom Census 2001, and City status in the United Kingdom just for the sake of delinking it!), and there are large gaps and biases on Britishness and Unionism (Scotland) in general. Articles about the UK (looking at the edit history), have been visited by one or two of the same editors who've tried to break the article up according to constituent country, whilst those people who have been promient seperatists have large entries on this, whereas those who are prominent unionists have none (compare The Proclaimers and Sean Connery with David Hume and Adam Smith).

It's a two sided issue however, where those who advocate the independance of Cornwall, are doing the same with England.

I knew the situation was bad, but realised it was chronic as part of editting the Bernard Manning article of all entries!

I'm struggling how best to organise this, but I'm thinking of collecting some names who share these concerns and have a discussion why the present system is not working... then, I hope to present our findings, and open a straw poll for a proper British naming conventions page.

It is nice to know you share my concerns. If you have any ideas, or examples of bad practice do please share! Jhamez84 11:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Infact, I may need your input on the Manning article talk page, sooner rather than later. Jhamez84 21:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think I've said my bit now, and I've tried to give some kind of viewpoint as well as proposing a compromise which clearly indicates what is the legal nationality and what is a self-chosen descriptor with no official legal basis. I suspect that the requirement for it to be cited and verified may be the stumbling block.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Stoke-on-Trent#Areas for improvement

Hi! As someone who has been involved in the Stoke article before I wondered if you could look at this and add in any assistance you can? I am going to get back to the Cheshire categorisation at some point. I am trying to work out the best way to do it using AWB. Cheers, Regan123 12:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi! OK - I was going to do some work on it, but got diverted with other things. I'll go back and take a look to see what i could do that's on the list. Can you remind me what the Cheshire Categorization was you had in mind? I think, depending on the outcome of a CfD some large-scale renaming of the Cheshire civil parish categories might be on the cards for one instance.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I had started putting things into local government district cats, as I have done elsewhere. I started then never have quite got back to them...:-( Regan123 22:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Great Hale

Thanks for the note. Fortunately, I had seen the deletion note and added an appropriate image tag (I'm not sure how I forgot initially, but it's not the first time). I don't have any connection with the village; I was just visiting Boston, then stopped to look at Heckington on my way home and noticed an interesting-looking church on the horizon. Warofdreams talk 21:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Cornwall settlement infobox

Hello again Ddstretch, would you be kind enough to pass comment at this TfD entry? Hope all is well, Jza84 21:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC) (formerly Jhamez84)

WP:UKCITIES

Remeber that idea? Something simillar has been raised again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, I know you've had strong ideas about this in the past; now may be the time to start working out an action plan! - I'd be happy to hear your input on this. Jza84 18:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Aaarghh! I do recall it now, and, unfortunately, I was going to have a serious think about it, and have never got round to it. I'll set aside some time for it, but I'm under family pressure to ease back a bit on wikipedia work right now, so I'll have to think how I can work on it. In fact, at the moment, having recently seen the clash between USA (and USA centric) approaches to wikipedia (what with disambig. pages being proposed that always give precedence to USA cities), I'm inclined now to think we need to consider whether a separate UK wikipedia (like the German one) would avoid some of the recurrent friction.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

David. I seem to have stirred up some controversy at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements when all I want to do is to get Runcorn (and many other UK settlements) up to FA standard! I intend to make some further comment on that page. I guess you're not really serious about a UK Wikipedia - this would mean a separate Wikipedia for every English speaking country, would it not? The current friction between US and others does seem to be a problem but I personally have benefitted by having some US comment on my own work - it's made me see things through others' eyes. Best wishes. Peter. Peter I. Vardy 11:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello again - You're right about the US-centricism which is occuring all too often (and increasingly so). I think that's partly due to the inherent problem of building convensions based on WP:CONSENSUS; the US has a vastly larger population and thus voting is always going to swing in their favour. A great shame. I think strenghtening our UK team (which worked so well on the UK place infobox rollout) would help.

However, that aside, I've left some comments in which I outline some options at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements which I know you've been very supportive of in the past, and you will share great interest in. It may remove the need for WP:UKCITIES, or may even be the redirect page for that link. Hope to hear from you, and that all is well, Jza84 13:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, I've written some possible new guidelines based on what's avaliable at WP:CITIES - I think they're a great improvement, but would like your input and blessing, and a confirmation I've not overlooked anything.

The guidelines I'm proposing at avaliable to view at my sandbox, though if you could pass comment here rather than directly to me, (just so everyone can see for the future) that would be great. Hope all is well, Jza84 10:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nantwich

Good Lord! I don't know how that happened - it's not a bot edit, and wasn't visible in "show differences" before I saved it. Probably a WikiMedia glitch. Thanks for fixing, Rich Farmbrough, 15:00 8 July 2007 (GMT).

Wikiquette

I've passed comment. I think this is a great great shame... I sense that the reverts (performed by two highly comparable accounts) on "Alkrington, Greater Manchester" may be an age-old chronic troll and sockpuppetteer who breached WP:POINT to persue a simillar agenda, and traditionally reacted in a not too disimillar way as today. I'll monitor the situation.

You have of course my fullest of support. Jza84 22:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all for the comments - I remember this happened not too long ago with yourself, again you were attacked a traditional counties forker, just when you were being dipolmatic, calm and reasonable. I really empathise with this as I had some terrible problems with this when I first joined Wikipedia.... When you make unbeatable points this seems to happen; editors "spit their dummies out". To me it's a tell-tale sign of POV editting.

Anyway... this seems to have blown over for the time being. I'm still persuing a Template:Infobox UK district, although have you noticed London's transclusion of Infobox settlement? I think it looks good, but it's very, very open to inconsistencies, which is why I still would like to see a standardised template for all other districts. I've contacted User:Pigsonthewing to see if he is interested in initiating this infobox. Jza84 00:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm working with User:Keith D (see bottom of talk) to create a provisional UK/England district infobox. I would feel more than comfortable for you to be involved in the development of this infobox, to say the least! Manchester has has it's infobox converted, but I'm not happy with some of the content, open-ness and ordering in Template:Infobox settlement at all. Hope all is well, Jza84 19:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, it is troubling that that user has twice now editted the guidelines like that. I wouldn't mind, but there is a talk page which should be used to ensure changes reflect consensus. I have too many concerns about that infobox for it to be let loose on the UK districts yet.

The infobox looks weak at the moment, but it is a start, and certainly better than what I could produce.

On another note (I know we work closely together, but don't assume an automatic backup here), as an impartial Cheshireman, do you have any thoughts on this? It's becoming a somewhat persistent problem. I've tried to explain my interpretation on the article talk page and the anon's talk page, but I'm hitting a brick wall. Glad all is well Jza84 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I did have reservations about that compass table! I wouldn't mind, but it was just too.... over the top! Jza84 20:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we start discussions at a Template:Infobox England district talk page (I don't think it's fair to use Keith's talk page!). Scotland seems to have it's own infobox, which I'm not overly impressed with the look at functionality with. We can always amalgamate again to a England & Wales, GB, or UK district infobox at a later date. Jza84 20:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!... again!

Thanks ever so much for the support. It seems we attract these sorts! I posted an admin notice following your lead... In terms of the content being disputed, the Manchester article's wording is currently more hardline than I suggested as a compromise, but I'm being targetted more than other parties, I can only guess because my points on the talk page were more considered and constructed. A great shame.

Thanks again however, I think we're getting there in terms of UK geography (two steps forwards, one step back!)... Jza84 00:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting

David. I notice that you have deleted a new external link in the Runcorn article. At the same time it seems that some of the copyediting it is currently undergoing has been reverted. Did you mean to do that — you didn't mention it in your edit summary? I have reverted the text back to what it was and deleted the offending link. Is that OK? I don't want to offend the copyeditor; he is a retired Englaish professor after all! (Not that I like all his amendments!) Best wishes. Peter. Peter I. Vardy 08:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Peter. No, I didn't mean to do that. It must have escaped my notice as I am usually careful to avoid doing that. My apologies. Should I apologise to him as well, do you think? I'm happy to do that.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

David. Don't worry. I've left a message on his talk page which I think will be sufficient. Have a look and you can add to it only if you think it is necessary. Peter. Peter I. Vardy 08:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Chew Stoke FAC

Hi, You kindly made some comments about the Chew Stoke article on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chew Stoke. I wonder if it would be possible for you to take another look as I believe your comments have been addressed. Thanks— Rod ^talk 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Roy Chadwick and the two Farnworths

We've both missed spotting about Roy Chadwick's birthplace. I hadn't spotted that he shouldn't be under the "notable residents" on the Farnworth page, but belongs to the Farnworth, Widnes page. You mistakenly reverted both pages when an editor actually was making a correction.
Roy Chadwick was born in the village of Farnworth, Widnes not the one near Bolton. I checked the FreeBMD index and yes he was born in the Apr/May/Jun quarter of 1893 in the Prescot Registration District which covers the Widnes area, then part of Lancashire.
See FreeBMD Search and GENUKI Prescot Registration District.
I've now corrected both Farnworth pages, and his own page.
It might be an idea to make things clearer. I'm sure there's a Wikipedia places convention page and about two places with the same name have the ceremonial county added - i.e. Farnworth, Cheshire and Farnworth, Greater Manchester. At the moment I don't think both pages don't follow the guidlines. There could be a disambiguation page which directs to the correct one.
Anyway, I'm taking a break for a while. Regards Cwb61 (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Yes, you are right. I made a mistake. Thanks for sorting it out. I also think your idea about being clearer with the disambiguation might be an idea. I'll see if there is any easy way of doing this.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(Addition) By the way, I had realised this as you had been making the changes, and lo and behold! Your message appeared as I was considering what to do about it!  DDStretch  (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left more comments [Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:195.212.52.6.2FUser:Rob_right_and_Manchester here], about the ongoing problem with Rob right. He's appeared as User:79.73.36.212 and is still reverting dispite calls for debate. Jza84 00:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wirral Peninsula

Hi, I appreciate your attempt to defuse the incivility in the talk page here. Just thought I'd pass on a 'thanks' for that. I've no intent of edit warring (hence refraining from making edits restoring the links removed etc., and promoting the need for further discussion with other editors, longer than the one day of discussion that's taken place so far); you're right in that external links are perhaps a tad trivial when compared with the lack of verifiability within some articles etc., but it's inappropriate that a breach in WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL is taking place here, with a user who is pushing a clear POV and trying to disrupt to prove a point over the deletion of his own link. :( Here's hoping it's sorted soon, and amicably!!! Coldmachine^Talk 19:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, talk about a tidy up! Article is now looking a heap better! :) :) :) Coldmachine^Talk 09:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wahaha Danone joint venture

I just created this article on this very topical subject. The subject matter would make for a good featured article, so I am hoping to enlist your help to get it there qualitatively. Ohconfucius 03:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

List of largest urban sub-divisions in England by population

Please engage in discussion on this matter rather than flagging the changes as vandalism. The fact of the matter is that no source has been cited identifying these urban sub-divisions as towns or cities as regards the population figures given. As this is the case, any interpretation of the wording in the sources can only be regarded as original research and therefore is not appropriate on the page. That is the reason for identifying them as urban sub-divisions in the article rather than towns or cities. EarlyBird 19:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No need

No need to apologize for the inadvertent changes you made to some of my edits. I'm new to this wikiworld, but I already realize that it is more like an ant mound than a professional sports team with individual stars--the big picture is what is important. I took no offense at all. Marcus Sheffield 21:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Second city of the United Kingdom

Yes, you're probably right about it being a hopeless case - though I'm doing my best to try to get everyone pulling together and put positive spins on everything, but it's like banging my head on a brick wall. If we can persuade one certain individual to "play ball", then I think everyone else may well follow. Fingerpuppet 20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Sandbach Trivia

I belive that this is an important and intresting fact about Sandbach and people deserve to know about this and i can not see any justifications for you to delete this.Jim walker was here 08:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Metro Systems

Well to be honest, in reference to my edit, for the "LUZ" click the tab and read the article, for the metropolitan area it's from here, with the Manchester metro area ranked 11th, deducting the urban area of 860,000 from Liverpool leaves you with the figure on the table. This figure is substantially higher that the West Midlands. Hope I have been of assistance. Should I fill in the "metro" row or you? Onnaghar (sch-peak) 20:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Well, the metro section was added when I was momentarily bemused by the figures, and I thought it was metro transport system meant. (It wasn't immediately clear to me, but I probably just had a temporary brain spasm!) I think it best for you to do any major corrections, but if you can reference it, like some of the others, that would help. I'm unsure which figures refer to what in one place, and the comment about Birmingham in the Manchester column should be removed, leaving the person reading the figures to make the interpretation, as was agreed we should do in drawing up the table.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Revering Vandalism

Your userpage says one of your activities on wiki is revering vandalism. Not being mean, I thought that was brilliant! Don't know if it was intentional, but please keep it that way.:)Merkinsmum 23:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. I noticed it on re-reading it just after I had added it, and fell over laughing so much at it, I decided to leave it in. So far, you are the only one to spot it! Well done!  DDStretch  (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

alternative therapy paranoia

Me too, both 'sides' can lash out at anyone not rabid about their viewpoint. I found that on Gillian McKeith- anyone not happy with the article being an attack page, was called a 'McKeith-lover' at first, and the page was ruled by the sceptical camp. We eventually made it an ok page, I think it's been given Good Article status now. You could take a look at the Morgellons page- if you dare!:)Merkinsmum 23:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pulford

Just wanted to let you know, I responded on my talk page. Cheers! Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 20:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Holidays

Hello again! All I can say is I'm quite jealous (I've not had a holiday in years!)! I hope you have a great time. I'm sure you'll be missed during those few weeks you'll be away. Jza84 21:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. We had to go, or else I would have faced a family mutiny from people who want to go swimming in the sea and want to meet up with a grandmother, uncles, and cousins. The varied routes we're taking (by train) means we'll have a chance of looking at some of the flood damage on our way back.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope you enjoy it! Don't spend it gathering material for WP!

On another note before you go, I've just created a new WP:UK geo userbox to try to raise awareness of it's existance... you may wish to add it to your page (User WP UK geo). Jza84 21:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Chester City (district)

You submitted an AFD for Chester City (district). That can actually be done through the speedy deletion process (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion) under category G6 (non-controversial housekeeping tasks). You can put {{db-g6}} on the article to request speedy deletion under that criterion. Just an FYI for next time. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Mugabe

I'm sorry, but Robert Mugabe is a dictator. One of the worst dictators of the world in the last 2 years.

Royaljared 11:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:BLP, and the warning stays. If you contest it, report it at the appropriate place on wikipedia. But I advise you to try to become more scholarly and pay more attention to the rules and guidelines.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Historic counties article

Thank you for your message. I have reverted your removal of the content as you seem not to have actually checked the additional (BBC) source taken from the CountyWatch article which I added, as it clearly states - "CountyWatch has taken down more than 30 of the signs" and has a photograph of some of the removed signs. That is from Lancashire and not Durham. I should also point out that I did not add the source about Durham - as that was the original source added to the article by whoever added the COuntyWatch details, so I have no idea why you mention that. I had also intended adding further sources from the CountyWatch site, but need more than a few minutes to do so. In addition, I have no idea why you should say "the claims you are making", when I have made no claims at all. I did not add the information about CountyWatch, my only involvement at all was because I read the article on the group which was written in a very bias POV style by the person who clearly runs the group and so I looked into it and added sources, whilst also removing much of the POV and weasel words in that article. I have nothing whatsoever to do with CountyWatch and have certainly not made any claims about them whatsoever.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your further two messages. However, yet again you use the word "claims" with regard to my edits, when it was not me who added the information about CountyWatch; in fact I have added no text whatsoever (if I recall correctly without going back to check). I realise you said "appear to be" but with respect, you seem to be reverting without checking (stating about claims being only threats to remove in Durham when there was a source added which you removed in your revert) and you are giving me no time whatsoever to add further information whilst you yet again change the section. I don't even agree with what CountyWatch do. However, a while back I saw the article on the group, and it was a mess to say the least, so I tried cleaning it up and getting it neutral. And having worked on their article, and having read all the various sources; and also having sourced more articles, I could also see that they have removed signs and that their claims (please note - their claims not mine which you again used in your edit sumary) were correct. But today you have given me little or no time to add anything further before you revert my edits. So I will yet again try to add sources, later this evening and would appreciate some time given to be able to add them. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above, I have added more sources and content. I should point out again though that I previously added absolutely no content about CountyWatch to the Historic Counties article and so any weasel words, POV and bias etc were not of my making. Yet the edit summaries and message on my talk page have made implications about me that are untrue; and read as if I was adding weasel words, adding unsourced content etc etc - something I work hard to ensure I do not do. If you check the Historic counties article history you will find that it was User:Tony Bennett (who seems to have a history of editing articles for groups etc in which he is heavily involved), who in July, added the claims about the number of signs and who added the weasel words and POV. Also if you check the history of the CountyWatch article you will also see that I have worked hard to get that article to a reasonable standard instead of what it was before, which was just an advert for the group, mostly done by that same user. I work hard to always ensure that my edits on wikipedia are NPOV (though like everyone I do at times make mistakes) and when someone uses edit summaries (and also leaves a message on my talk page) to comment about claims I have allegedly made, and weasel words allegedly made etc as you did today, then I will react as I have done, especially when I have worked really hard on the CountyWatch article to make it more NPOV. For instance (and absoultely nothing to do with this!!) I support Blackpool FC, and detest Preston North End with a passion. But I have the PNE article in my watchlist to check for vandalism of that article, which I always remove if I spot it; as I might not like them, but equally I detest vandalism on wikipedia, as well as also disliking clear POV edits to article. My mistake was to believe that as there were numerous sources cited in the CountyWatch article to back up the removal of signs, that that was enough and those same sources were not needed on the Historic Counties article as they were already in place on another article. I also thought that to add sources would do what has had to be done now, increase the content about the group. However, it was presumably an error. Something we all do. I hope you understand why I reacted in such a way especially when edit summaries and my talk page are being used to state things about my editing that are untrue. Hopefully it all reads correctly now and we both just have to hope that User:Tony Bennett doesn't come along again and claim that CountyWatch have now removed 1,600 signs (unsourced of course.....) ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

AARRGGHH, (and yes I do mean to shout!). Weird how these things happen, but this evening the user I mentioned above (Tony Bennet) and who I jokingly suggested might add more unsourced content, has added a load more content on the CountyWatch article all unsourced; all POV, full of ridiculous weasel words, and twisting of what is mentioned in a source! And thank you for your last message, much appreciated and no hard feelings. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)