User talk:Ddstretch/Archive 3

Birkenhead

I don't believe it either. Perhaps you are right about it being incredible. I doubt if the term 'capital' had any great meaning in those days. I will zap it.JMcC 13:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Persona Grata!

Great to see you back again! Hope all is well! Jza84 00:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I'm both pleased and saddened you'll get some time away from Wikipedia! But at least you're travelling and not glued to the PC as I.

I presume you either refer to User:Tony Bennett? Or, possibly, User:81.153.36.88 and/or User:Imaginativename?

What I suspect is happening is that Tony Bennett (prominent member of "yawn" CountyWatch), has alerted his friends and colleges of how to edit Wikipedia. This could potentially be something very serious, and undermine all the great progress we've made on UK settlements for the last 6-12 months (prior to that it was just a matter of endless reverts about counties).

I'll monitor the situation, as I'm sure you will too. We may need to strengthen the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) in an effort to ensure the integrity and prosperity of the project.... hopefully it may just pass however.

I'll roll out maps for Cumbria and North Yorkshire asap! Jza84 00:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I suppose now we just have to wait and see, though I've also alerted User:Keith D about this matter, and I have a few other users who I know will not want to see a return of this matter again to Wikipedia. I noted Bernard Manning has received the same "Middleton, Manchester, Lancashire" edits anonymously too, which I've reverted. It's really ridiculous!... Anyway, onwards and upwards - keep me informed of any ideas you have! North Yorks map nearly complete! Jza84 01:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Cumbria and North Yorks maps are done! As is one for Rutland... what I'm messaging you about however is the possibility of creating a map for Cheshire simillar to that I've done for List of civil parishes in Greater Manchester. I know you have some knowledge and interest in Civil parishes in Cheshire, and wondered where I might find some source material? Jza84 20:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Silly People

It is the right of the free world for them to decide who is silly and who isn't. I don't see how it can be considered vandalism for me to offer people to choice to follow a link to a page where they can express which individuals they feel are silly.

People should be free to edit this page at their own will. It is not the place of you or anyone else to decide who is silly and who isn't. Allow this page to go on and allow the people to decide. Atraxus 23:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute... are you from Stoke? Atraxus 00:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Mugabe a legitimate President?

First what are you doing editing Wikipedia on your holiday? Secondly Mugabe rigged the elections, that makes him illegitimate - I did not vandalise wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian.gratwicke (talk • contribs) 16:40:39, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

If he rigged the elections, then it should be mentioned and verified by appropriate citations. Without that, it remains vandalism, and the warning remains.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As I stated at [1], this is a POV edit which needs references to support it. That said, this was not vandalism and Ddstretch should not have used that word. --Alabamaboy 17:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

And what about the other accusations (now deleted by myself in line with advice from WP:Wikiquette)?  DDStretch  (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing External Links on the Parkgate, Cheshire Page

Why remove the external link to parkgateguide —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.103.243 (talk) 16:12, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I removed it, or, rather, I didn't convert it into a Reference along with the other Extrenal links, and merely deleted it, because when I did the conversion, as far as I could see, the website was effectively non-functional. I wasn't alone in having this problem, as I asked a colleague using a different machine, a different ISP, and a different route, and he confirmed the link was effectively so mangled up, it didn't convery anything useful. After your message, I went and chacked it and found that it was working (but I think the site design could be improved a bit). So, thanks for alerting me to this. I've now added it as a reference in what I hope is an appropriate place. weblinks occasionally go "stale" or "dead" and in those circumstances, there is little else one can do but delete them. I hope that sorts out the problem. Thanks again for alerting me.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Re Your comments on History of Cheshire

I didn't want to say this on the main project page, but actually I'm substantially in excess of the 1974 date, just labouring under the disadvantage of having been born a southerner. I've only lived in Cheshire for just over the decade, and didn't really get into local history/geography until getting hooked on Geograph last year. Espresso Addict 13:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Brereton

No worries -- I used to be a copy editor many, many years ago, and I'm left with an inconvenient inability to let a typo go! Espresso Addict 15:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheshire Portal for September

I've suggested Jodrell Bank Observatory, Michael Owen & at the portal talk page for September. Your thoughts would be appreciated! Espresso Addict 10:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)

Hello again!

Sorry for the slight delay - half a bank holiday weekend took hold! I think you raise very valid points - certainly builds on what I added (the previous version was very ambiguous!).

I think a third tier of disambiguation should be considered like you say.... I know from User:MRSC's older work, that post towns and such are generally frowned upon, however, I really can't see any other way. I wonder if we use the post town after the "," like we currently do with counties etc, or, we use the district/county and add the post town in brackets? What do you think? Jza84 23:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: My Edit to Winsford

I'm assuming you've been to Winsford and therefore know that what I typed was fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.119.232 (talk) 19:32, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

The only thing of relevance to this matter that I do know is that what you wrote (which was reverted by another editor) was vandalism, as it was full of derogatory accusations without the semblance of any verification (which I doubt could ever be provided in any form that would satisfy any encyclopaedia.)  DDStretch  (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Academic Journals project

Hi, a while ago you expressed an interest in a Journals project I proposed on the Council Proposals page ... it has been launched at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals and your involvement in the early discussions would be very much appreciated. Cheers, John Vandenberg 15:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Macclesfield borough

Macclesfield borough: my pleasure...
I am, on principle, against having a wikilink and an external link referring to the same subject side by side, but I fully accept that this may not be everybody's preference. So I don't mind :-) --Jotel 16:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My good faith edit to Wilmslow Trivia section

Hello DDstretch. I actually edited the Wakefield entry first, taking Chanelle OUT of a lengthy "Famous People born in or near Wakefield" list. I did read the Tag about Trivia sections, but there was no list like the Wakefield one to add it to and it didn't seem any less notable than the other entries already in the Trivia section. Any ideas on how to integrate the Chanelle info into the main article ? Perhaps by making a separate list as in the Wakefield article. I can provide a citation for the Alderley Edge champagne trivia. The (UK) Daily Star Sunday newspaper, August 19th 2007, page 28; The quote- "Alderley Edge was named by a national off-licence chain as the UK's champagne capital after they discovered more bottles were sold there than in their Mayfair branch.". I can also back up the Chanelle info with references. I haven't undone your edit because I wanted to talk to you first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.144.93 (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a "Notable Residents" section, which would be the obvious place for any verified entry, but I wonder just how notable Chanelle is, compared with being a person who is of a mainly transitory newsworthy interest, and not really suitable for an encyclopaedia. As for the champagne entry, I suggest that section three (Present Day) would be an appropriate place for such information. The fact that there are some other probable unsuitable entries in a trivia section does not mean others can or should be added freely—especially when that section has already been tagged as being not recommended in an article. DDStretch  (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Derbyshire

Hello! I've noticed you said that WP:Derbyshire would be a good idea. The project now has 5 (maybe 6?) supporters, and so I've created a temporary page within my User Space. Please expand it, and then we will move it over. I'm currently working on a logo, Userboxes, Talk Page Banners etc, and a few adminy pages, assessment, template, stub etc. It's at User:Bluegoblin7/WP:Derbyshire if you want to expand it. Thanks, Bluegoblin7 17:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Pennine Waterways links

There is a discussion about the appropriateness or otherwise of some links that have been added to a number of pages, and subsequently removed. As you are a member of the project, you may wish to comment at

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Waterways#Pennine Waterways Links

Mayalld 14:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Somerset wikiproject

Following your expression of interest, I've started the basic templates etc at Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset. I'm sure your experience and expertise would be welcome.— Rod ^talk 21:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal

Thanks for your note. We appear to have a case here where an editor has made a considerable number of contentious edits to a series of articles (including renaming them) within the scope of {WikiProject UK Waterways} without discussing them first; and now appears to be (possibly) making racist remarks. The WikiProject UK Waterways is now also accused of bias for not producing an article on a lock in Antwerp. I was not aware that Antwerp was in the UK.Pyrotec 12:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that he is an admin: try this link to his edits: [2]

Pyrotec 16:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

He's not an admin, although he has reported other users for 3RR rule. I've just undone the Hay Inclined Plane to Hay inclined plane move. Lets see what happens now.Pyrotec 17:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for picking up the baton on this one. We seem to be thinking along exactly the same lines. I haven't read all of today's discussions yet (but my watchlist shows there's been a lot). WP has a tendency to absorb any available time, and I don't have the emotional energy reserves to argue this one through. EdJogg 23:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have replied politely to SimplyHuman. My original reply was longer but he double cross-edited me. He moved a b-class article and one that I've just rated as start-class; I added that to his talkpage. I'll rate everyone if I have to and list them, to discount his "stub" argument; but it has not yet come to that.Pyrotec 17:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: help with undoing a page move

I took a quick read through the discussion and did the move back to Little Bedwyn Lock. Slambo (Speak) 11:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your RFA was successful

Thanks, DDStretch! I shall do my best to wield the mop & bucket wisely. Espresso Addict 20:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Woolston, Cheshire

Sorry - I got interrupted. Yes; I will amend the links to Woolston, Cheshire so that Woolston will become a disambiguation page. --Daemonic Kangaroo 19:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Derbyshire Ocotber Newsletter

The WikiProject Derbyshire Newsletter Issue I - October 2007 Got any suggestions? - Add them here

Editor's Message Hello, and welcome to this first issue! Please keep on contributing here. and keep your comments coming in. If you wish to continue to receive this, then add your name to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Derbyshire/Newsletter, otherwise you will not receive it after this issue! Thanks! Bluegoblin7 19:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Member news The project currently has 10 members. However, it could increase by YOU telling others about the Project!

This Month's Achievements! We have NO unassessed articles We have a live portal We have lots of project pages There are over 200 tagged articles

Monthly Challenges Create a welcome message for new and prospective members. The Portal is now live, so please keep nominating and voting for the relevant articles! Try to invite more members to this project. As much as a streamlined team is good, the more editors we have the broader the range we can cover. Nominate for next month's collaboration Created by Bluegoblin7

Hi Ddstretch! Here is this month's newsletter! To continue recieveing it, follow the link within and add your name! Bluegoblin7 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Warrington

Hello again! I hope all is well. It seems we haven't crossed paths for sometime which is most unusual. In truth, I've reduced my editting a little of late (following a period of overdrive to achieve some big feats like WP:UKCITIES, FA for Shaw and Crompton, furthering WP:MANC and producing dynamic pointer county maps for the entire of England!), but I'm hoping to step up my efforts once again. Indeed, in addition to actually completing the rollout of maps for the UK place infobox, I intend to raise Oldham and Greater Manchester to WP:GA asap, as well as raise awareness of and continue to apply the WP:UKCITIES standard as part of my usership of WP:UKGEO. All good wholesome stuff of course! Do you have any ideas or personal projects of your own at the moment? I know you had expressed interested in producing something about "Domesday" Cheshire and/or hundreds and wapentakes last time we spoke.

With regards to the changes made to the Warrington related content by User:DShamen, I've left him a message urging him to reconsider his approach. I have actually had some experience with this user in the past re contemporary geographic demarcation‎. He has made some good contributions, particularly in overhalling categorisation of settlements within NW England, and so I'm quite surprised with these changes and must assume there is some element of confusion on his part. Let us hope it stops abrupted, at very least to discuss the changes in hand.

On a related topic, as you probably remember I'm a keen geneaologist, and was quite surprised of late to have found Warrington listed at a [www.cheshirebmd.org.uk Cheshire civil registration lookup page], even though Liverpool and Oldham at found at the [www.lancashirebmd.org.uk Lancashire version] of the site. Genealogical records are kept at a post-74 level (such as those at the Greater Manchester County Records Office), but usually published according to pre-74 boundaries. I think it's a possible testament that the marriage of Warrington with Cheshire was not (and is not) considered by the population to have been any kind of retrograde or "faux-county" type step, and thus one of the more popular changes made by the LGA72. Just my thoughts of course.

Anyway, lets hope the Warrington issue is now resolved. If not, do please get in touch. And do let me know what you're working on at the moment within the project. Good to hear from you, Jza84 01:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Before I finally get round to replying in full, would you be so kind as to share your thoughts regarding the latest discussion at the WP:UKCITIES talk page. Jza84 18:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Bloody hell! I kept meaning to reply back but something always pops up! I'm sorry to hear your son was ill, and also your brother-in-law had/has a cancer scare. I hope these things have since passed in your favour??

Re your work on Cheshire, I've taken a look at Hundreds of Cheshire and some other stuff you shared and it is excellent stuff!... That I remembered to reply to you came about by thinking about the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire - the Greater Manchester version has gone through some radical changes, including a new logo by yours truely.... just wondered if I could produce something simillar as a thanks for all your support and contributions in the past. Also, as Cheshire is in the North West, it is one of GM's sister projects! Hope everythings well with you, -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

UK geography project

Thanks for the response on the project talk page! I knew you'd come to the rescue!... The project is quite terrible, and I was motivated by your comments when I was archiving some of the talk page material.

The project clearly needs to change its remit; I think it should exist purely as a centralised "mother" project for all the county/city projects - as you'd suggested.

I've made some changes to the page in my sandbox. I'd be keen to get some input. Feel free to edit this space too! -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

pick a journal ... any journal

Hi, could you pick an old journal in a field that you are familiar with for a future collaboration project; enter it under "Nominations for future CotW:" in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic_Journals#Planning_ahead. Thanks, John Vandenberg 01:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reversion

Thanks, DDStretch. I think that might be the first time my page has ever been vandalised! Cheers, Espresso Addict 23:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

UKCOUNTIES?

Hello Ddstretch/Archive 3! I Hope all is well. I'm contacting you as part of your continued membership of WP:UK Geography.

In addition to some cosmetic upgrades I've made/requested for the project, I'm considering a draft upgrade of the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties guide, so that it is much more user friendly and at a standard more akin to the WP:UKCITIES standard.

Of course I'd like to have you involved from the start. If you have any concerns or ideas, I'd be grateful if you could leave them at my talk page, where I'll pool together some ideas from some other users and then report back with them. My initial thoughts are they should inline with the existing policy on counties as well as allow for flexibility for ENG/SCO/WLS/NI. Hope you can help, -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again! I've actually managed to produce a draft version at WP:UKCOUNTIES, with an interesting system for different types of counties. Hope you can give them a once over - I've undoubtedly missed something. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: vandalizm

to whom (all) it may concern,

Re: vandalizm of information

dear sir or madame,

the purpose of this note isn't to make you angry, get on your case or even argue with you over the matter of the accussations of vandalizing yours or any other wiki pages. like everything on this site, this is a discussion of an informative nature; my only purpose is to inform.

with that said, i would just like to say, "i don't know what you're talking about." to be 100% factual about the matter, i had been receiving "warnings due to the vadalism i had been causing" for quite some time now and the sad thing is: i DO NOT edit ANYTHING on Wiki for a few reeasons, but the main one being that, in my eyes, it is not my work so i have no right to change it. and with that point made clear, if i wouldn't change it simply because it isn't my work, why would i vandalize it? if you knew this, to say that i would be a vandal in this situation is an irrational comment.

now i realize you didn't know that about me until now, and maybe something is going on like someone "borrowing" my IP, or a watch bot is messing up at it's job. so i understand that you might have a rational reason or two to believe you are flagging a vandal, but i assure you, nothing of that nature is going on with me. in fact, that only reason i use Wiki is to do research (intellectual material comprised of FACTUAL information); so, in making my second point, if i use this site for it's TRUE purpose, why would i destroy it? to better explain my reasoning: if i attend a church and genuinly use it to worship, then why would i paint grafiti on it's walls? reason would say that i wouldn't, don't you think?

as i mentioned at the beginning of the note: i'm not trying to be offencive, or argue about this matter; i just needed to get my point across and be blunt about it: i have not, will not, and do not edit text on Wiki, be it vandalistic or legit. the only thing i will ever use this site for is to do one of two things: a)conduct research, or b) [maybe, possibly] add a new topic that isn't already in Wiki, or add a new entry to an existing topic. Note: out of both "a)" and "b)", i have only done "a)" so far. you see, as of always, i have been strictly on the learning side of things and not at all on the teaching side of things as far as this site is concerned, and definately not on the "destroying information" side of things. plus i have much more respect for information than someone who would vandalize it. to me it's like the book burnings of facist WW2 Germany, and the Spanish Inquisition. it is destruction of knowledge.

so now that you know my feelings on the vandalism of information, rest assured that whomever is conducting this act, it isn't me. thank you for your time.

with all due respects, richard warren

Reply to DDStretch by Twinney12

The Coat of Arms badly placed? badly placed? The image of The Coat of Arms of Chester has been placed at the top of the page about Chester. Where else would one place it eh? The bottom, middle, to one side? - Excirial does not appear to be as concerned as you are about the Coat of Arms as he/she offered advice.

About the "strange disclaimer" you mention - I suggest you contact Martin Waters at Chester City Council and tell him that HIS disclaimer is strange, for he wrote the disclaimer in an email to me, which you are free to inspect.

Excirial wrote, with reference to the Coat of Arms.: "Now about the reference: Is there any chance that you could just create a number reference without the preceding "Not endorsed" text? A disclaimer doesn't fit inside the article, so it might be better to move it to references altogether. --Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 11:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)" You wrote: Excuse me, but it was me who removed the reference to the Duke. The information was out of place in the article about Chester, but would fit in the article about the Duke. I also have changed other things around which were not in conformance with guidelines (see WP:UKCITIES.) I have also removed the coat of arms that are badly placed and, with the strange disclaimer really does not fit in. I suggest that these kinds of major changes would be better discussed prior to them being made on either Talk:Chester or the Cheshire WikiProject. I left you a note about this. DDStretch (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, please do not use inflammatory language in your edit summaries, and, also be aware that you are nearing a 3rr boundary that may reasult in you being temporarily suspended. DDStretch (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

'Buggering about' is hardly 'inflammatory language' What, are you an American bible puncher who considers 'dam' 'inflammatory language'?

Also don't you dare threaten me over such trivial issues You wrote: "also be aware that you are nearing a 3yr boundary that may result in you being temporarily suspended" Who is your supervisor I think I will have a word.

I am acting in good faith here as I was born in this city I love Chester and I still live here. Can you say the same? Kind regards, Tony Twinney12 (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Further to your last post to me

You started this with "Also, please do not use inflammatory language in your edit summaries, and, also be aware that you are nearing a 3rr boundary that may reasult in you being temporarily suspended. DDStretch (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)" I was not attacking you - I asked a question to the effect that how could 'Buggering about' inflame any normal person? I repeat, don't you dare threaten me over such trivial issues! I am acting in good faith here Kind Regards, Tony Tony - Twinney12 (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not a threat, nor is it in any way unusual for such notices to be posted to editors who do not conform to accepted standards of etiquette here. I accept that you are acting in good faith here, but gently try to suggest to you that the way in which you replied and reacted to my previous message is in itself not conducive to the smooth running of wikipedia, since they were clearly personal comments directed at me as a person (rather than at the content of my messages).  DDStretch  (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I accept your apology Twinney12 19:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I note that I cannot reciprocate, since you have not apologised for your personal comments about myself.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if you thought my comments were personal. Kind Regards, Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.162.115 (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fresh Comment

Can we apply the same rationale used by < User:Marnanel when s/he wrote about the CheshireItalic text Crest or Coat of Arms - " I consider this fair use in the same way that reproducing a corporate logo is fair use"? "This was a project to add the arms of the towns, boroughs, cities, districts and counties of England and Wales to both the English Wikipedia and the Welsh Wicipedia (see the "other languages" link) where appropriate. All the images came from the excellent civicheraldry.co.uk [1]. I've contacted the webmaster of the site and he's happy for the pictures to be used as long as we give credit. He mentions that towns may occasionally object to the use of their civic arms on a website. (However, I consider this fair use in the same way that reproducing a corporate logo is fair use.)" I also have contacted the webmaster of civicheraldry.co.uk to ask him to add the Chester COA to his site. When he does we can then use the COA in the same manner that the CHESHIRE COA has already been used. Doesn't civicheraldry.co.uk have the same problems with copyright? Who does own the copyright to a city's COA - The city or the citizens represented by the city? and I think the 'a corporate logo is fair use' point is strongest argument to be able to use COATony - Twinney12 (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello there! I am really pleased to see your return! I was really concerned about your whereabouts and had noticed a marked reduction in your contribution levels.

I'm sorry to hear (read) that you've had to attend a number of funerals. In such circumstances it's hard to know what to say, I very much hope you have been well supported through this time and connected people's hearts mend soon. I hope any other negative family matters pass soon for you with a positive outcome.

Coming back to Wikipedia, where I'm glad to see your return, I must thank you for taking the time to aid in developing a WP:UKCOUNTIES. I have replied to your comments at that page, and think, as always, you raise valid points.

On Chester and the gentleman user you've conversed with, I think you were in the right about this. I would imagine that user is quite new to Wikipedia and would probably benefit from spending a small time reading through some of the welcome pages. I was in a comparable situations just this week with an unregistered contributor to Belthorn and new contributor to Wormshill; pointing to WP:UKCITIES also came up trumps in these and in this capacity, the guideline served its purpose well.

I'm a little concerned about City status in the United Kingdom (not the article!). I know we all understand Carlisle, Salford, Leeds and of course Chester to be cities. However (and it is a big however), technically, they are not. All cities lost their city status as part of the LGA72; city and borough status had to be re-requested and bestowed, but at a local government district. In this capacity, it is actually the City of Carlisle, City of Salford, City of Leeds and City of Chester which hold city status.... All well and good that this is established, but how do we go about describing Salford etc? Will we ever achieve consensus to call them constituent parts or something akin to this term? - I'm not sure. This may be a discussion for the future though.

Anyway, I think my message is now lengthy enough. I am really pleased to see your return. I can't stress this enough! Get back to me if you can. Thanks, -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Halton schools

David. Many, many thanks for your timely additions to the Halton school stubs. I had been "inspired" to write a little about each when I discovered that one of the Widnes schools existed in duplicate with "wrong" titles. So I thought I would create starts for the others. OK they were minimal, but isn't that how Wikipedia articles can start and grow!

It's good to have you back in action again and I was sorry to read about your recent difficult times. Hope they are now behind you. Best wishes, Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I want to thank you for your comments in my recent RfA and on my talk page. I really do appreciate it. In a way I'm relieved that my nomination crashed and burned; I offered to help and my help wasn't wanted, so I'll just keep on doing what I do. I'd probably have made a crap admin anyway, far too blunt.

I have been wondering though whether there isn't a cultural gap between the UK and the US as to what's considered to be uncivil. I'm a great believer in John Hume's idea that "Truth springs from argument amongst friends". --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Chester mess

David. I hope you realise that my comment on Talk:Chester was not addressed at you but at the inexperienced new editor who is trying to run before s/he can walk. Let's hope in time that s/he becomes a useful contributor. Best wishes (and don't take Wikipedia TOO seriously - as you well know there are more important things in life!). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you're getting this trouble. I've added a couple of comments to Talk:Chester in the hope that the "message" will be received and understood. But looking at the track record I am not optimistic. Cheers, Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the contact about Chester. I was vaguely aware that there had been some disturbance on that article some time ago, but I made the call to fix a few things (it was just unbearable for me any longer!)

When I clicked on www.chesterwiki.com/ it appeared to be a deadlink. Having just clicked it again, it's up and running, so, I'll add that back into the ELs.

I'll monitor the article for changes, and see if there are any objections!... Hopefully not though! -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawing AfDs

I cannot stand for the intolerant, uncivil and completely disrespectful way that you behaved during the AfDs I nominated. I am withdrawing the AfDs not because I think I was wrong in any way, but rather because I refuse to participate in any type of conversation with you specifically any further. Completely unacceptable. • Freechild'sup? 13:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you does not equate to incivility. Respect was there, but your refusal to address any of the criticisms offered by others indicated that you were merely making a POINT, and it was difficult to maintain that. I am not alone in drawing that conclusion as you will see from others' contributions. I wish you well, but you do need to be able to take disagreements with your arguments if you want to have a good relationship with wikipedia. I urge you to continue, and wish you well.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that I share your (DDStretch) standpoint on this. I know I may be biased as I've worked with you closely in the past, but I really can't see any incivility in your text re "List of churches in....". Infact, I don't think I've ever seen any incivil text from you.... I sometimes wish I did, then I'd know I'm not the only mortal on here!

Seriously though, I see no need for Freechild to be upset - I can see he had Wikipedia's best interests at heart, but just failed to secure a consensus with the community. I would urge Freechild to consider debate, even heated debate, to often be a good thing for articles and Wikipedia as a whole, and part and parcel of being adventurous. There are many things which make me mad on Wikipedia (like Scotland being a nation in Europe), but I respect the consensus and just plod along making changes where I see I can. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, James, here and on Maleus' talk page. I think he does need to re-assess his approach to things. I agree that heated debate (which is not inherently uncivil) is a good way of getting things out in the open. I am sad that he thinks it was just me who drove him to withdraw the AfDs, rather than realising that there was just no consensus and no good reason for deleting the articles. He just didn't do a good job with them. Oh well...  DDStretch  (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Deva Victrix

The claim is make can be fully substantiated that Cheshire County Council (CCC) indeed make a profit from people visiting, therefore your allegation that I am making false allegations stating "Please try not to fall into the trap of making false allegations in order to fit in with what you would like to happen" I believe you need to reconsider your thoughts as from what I can see, those with an interest in this are making the false allegations. It is quite clear that the CCC make profit and therefore it is giving the CCC a promotional gain by linking to the site. I would appreciate the matter more if you actually knew what you were talking about before making false allegations. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.239.238 (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

First, sign your posts. Second, please do not become any more disruptive to make a point than you already are. The message I left was accurate and it is you who needs to step back from the matter. My responses on User talk:Majorly's talk page address the concerns, as does his comments.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me apologise for not signing my message left earlier, I don't believe for a moment that my actions was disruptive, more along the lines of removing links to external websites for promotional gain, which I am sure you are an intelligent person that you understand what promotional means, and thus the CCC make profit. I have perused your reply left on User talk:Majorly's talk page and agree with your actions. 84.69.239.238 (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

AFD: Manchester Cathedral Gardens Subculture

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester Cathedral Gardens Subculture 2 — would you agree to application of WP:SALT as suggested by Mike33 in the discussion if I were to close the action as 'delete'? If yes or no, could you indicate that in your opinion summary please? Thanks --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes and templates

Hello again Ddstretch, and happy new year!

I seem to be between a rock and a hard place on Template:Cambridgeshire's talk page. I know you have experience with counties, and were involved with producing Template:County, and wondered if you could add to anything I've said there. Of course I believe I'm right, so to speak, but please don't feel obliged to agree with me. I think the other user doesn't quite appreciate my points in a solo capacity.

On another note I've left a comment at WP:UKCITIES talk page about the possible use of Template:Infobox settlement and wondered if you had any thoughts or objections? Hope all is well with you. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year! I hope it gives you what you want! Thanks for the notice about Template:Cambridgeshire. I've commented on it, by actually improving (I hope) on what you suggested, taking into account some of that editor's thoughts on errors. The response seems to me to be surprising, but I hope my further response is acceptable to him (but I'm not going to hold my breath too much over it.) I hope you find my suggestions all right. I've included a revised template based on yours. I'll take a look at WP:UKCITIES and may well say something. I've noticed whilst I was trawling through Cambridgshire articles in the template you suggested a lot of non-standard and outright ugly ones there, and so I think a greater effort may well be needed to spread the message about the standard ones.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It is much appreciated. Christieboy doesn't seem to have warmed to (or clearly engaged with!) you; I've a feeling that even wider input will be needed. It seems most likely however that the consensus will be for a standard layout and content (as these things usually pan out!). I think the reasons outlined at talk make it clear why.

My point at UKCITIES was about some slight ammendments to the guide per developments I've seen in the last few weeks/months. Simillarly, I don't think they're contentious, but would appreciate your input.

A curious thing has happened to me this eve.... I've been nominated for adminship! It's a total shock. I'm not entirely sure I'd secure this (the process seems tough - and rightfully so). I will be spending some time thinking about this carefully. Indeed the pleasure for me on Wikipedia has always been the writing good articles. I'm a little torn. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

About the adminship: if you think you would like it, I would go for it. It may be an idea to see what other successful RFA people have done to try to ensure you get the adminship. I seem to recall that there are things one can do to show one is available and willing to learn the messy things that admins are sometimes called upon to do. I'm not sure if the current content dispute with Chrisieboy is at all relevant, but best be on best behaviour, which should be easy, or, rather, don't be tempted to get angry. I think you should be all right if you let things cool down a bit. At least that was my view of what had to be done when I considered seeing if I could go for it (if someone else nominated me a while back. The reaction Malleus got did rather make me pause for a long while, however, as I thought the behaviour shown in that nomination was a bit underhand and certainly capable of a tu quoque response if one felt moved to indulge in such tooing and frosing (which I did not, and I'm glad others did not.) Whatever you decide to do, I'll be happy to support you, though whether my view carries any weight is another matter.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Meetup

Hi there, I noticed you expressed interest in the Birmingham meetup last October. Just letting you know, another UK meetup is in planning stages, here. We need input on where and when we will meet so comments would be much appreciated. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

AWB

Your application to use autowikibrowser has been been approved but please take care as you are getting used to the tool. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hard spaces again

Progress, yes?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge tag

A tag suggesting the merger of The Grange Comprehensive School and Runcorn has been placed on the former article. I suppose the school is not particularly notable (which schools are?) but in the context of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire and in the interest of comprehensiveness, it is not better to have stubs on ALL Cheshire schools, thereby getting rid of the redlinks in the Cheshire schools template, in parallel with the civil parishes. What do you think? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Peter. I think we should just have stubs on all schools, as you suggest. After all, this merge notice could be legitimately interpreted as a call to expand the contents. So, given what the template says is allowed, I think we should merely remove the notice. A longer term "fix" to this might be to consider have a small number of larger articles (perhaps organised on local auithority districts) dealing with Higher Education is each of the areas it covers (e.g., "Higher Education in the Borough of Halton") and then merge the individual articles into their corresponding higher-level articles. The Cheshire Schools Template will still be useful: for schools that are at the time deficient in information so that a separate article is not justified at the moment, it will then have its links pointing to the relevant sections within the appropriate higher level article that describes each secondary school, and for the others, it will have its pointers placed to the actual article. If we did that, at a stroke, we would deal with possibly repeated attempts to delete Secondary Schools articles that others think could be deleted because they are stubs, or attenpts to merge them, and we would preserve the Cheshire Schools Template, allowing separate articles to then be split off from the large article when enough information was gathered about them. We can still use the schools infoboxes within the higher-level articles, I think, and so this may be worthy of consideration, I think. Let me know ahat you think.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I will put this on my "to do" list. I may need some help with the linking but I will ask for help if I cannot manage it. Incidentally we now have articles on all the Grade I listed Cheshire churches and on all but two of the II* listed churches. This has led me to give some attention to Cheshire architects. We could do with some more active members in the project. Best wishes. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

David. I have now merged all the Halton schools and the relatively new Riverside College into one new article, Secondary education in the Borough of Halton. The individual schools have been redirected to the main page and I am delighted to find that the links still work (or seem to). Do you think this is OK? Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, Peter. I think it works really well. The other districts could probably benefit from this kind of treatment, too. Now, if any of the individual sections grows too much, then, so long as it is apprpriately referenced, it can be split out into a separate article at a stage where it is unlikely to be continually open to AfD action.

I've started to be able to edit things again after getting a lot of family stuff out of the way, and so far, I've been filling in the gaps of the civil parishes in Congleton (borough), and I'll be working on Macclesfield (borough) next followed by Chester (district). I hope to have them all out of the way before any changes happen to the local government districts in Cheshire. At some point, we need to decide how to handle that. Additionally, I've done some work on Diocese of Chester, which will see more work done over the next few days. I have a few more maps to put in the article together with more on the history of the diocese. I'll tehn be working on Hundreds of Cheshire, adding more detail and maps, and I may well add a further article on Ancient Parishes of Cheshire. That will all give a basic framework with which History of Cheshire can be concentrated on.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. I am in process of effectively re-writing Chester Cathedral (in my sandbox) so it nicely compliments the work you are doing. It's a pity so few of the Project "participants" are doing anything. The Greater Manchester people would like to help us but I fear the active ones are at present too few on the ground - and I prefer to fill gaps rather than struggle to achieve the "honour" of FAs. User:Espresso Addict seems to have returned to do some work on Cheshire. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested to learn that Secondary education in the Borough of Halton has obtained some approval by Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#for info re UK schools. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Peter, I overlooked replying to this message. I'd just like to congratulate you on your work here, and think we could roll this out for the other districts and probably for other topics as well within Cheshire.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Cilgwri / Wirral

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Addition of Welsh names to English articles, under the sub-sub-section name "Cilgwri, Wirral" where it is better placed.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Hello. If you are interested, I thought I'd let you know that I have answered question 11, concerning my reports to UAA. Also, if possible, would you be willing to elaborate on why you feel my answer to question 6 isn't satisfactory? I would greatly appreciate it. Icestorm815 • Talk 21:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Academic Journals Collaboration notice

The current WikiProject Academic Journals Collaboration of the Week is Electrical Experimenter Please help to improve this article to the highest of standards.

RE:RFA

Thank you very much on expanding on your comment on my RFA. I greatly appreciate it. However, there are a few things that I would still like to address. As I stated in question 11, I don't believe that my reports to UAA were because of an overeagerness to block/report users, but because of a lack of complete knowledge of username policy. These reports were made 2 months ago, and since then I have learned much from them and understand the proper way I should have dealt with those issues in the past. As for my stand on administrator recall, I don't believe that not being in the category doesn't exactly mean I'm not open to a review of my administrative actions. I would gladly be open to a discussion on my talk page or his or her talk page. I would have no problem if the user wishes to bring in a third opinion. If a user wishes me to take part in a editor review or a request for comment, I wouldn't have any problem with that. The only issue I have with administrator recall is at the present time it is too dramatic. I'm still considering to add myself in the future if the process does change. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 16:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Thanks for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully with 40 supports, 13 opposes, and 4 neutrals. For those of you who supported my RFA, I greatly appreciate it. For those who did not, I'm also thankful for your constructive criticism. If you need some advice or have some pointers for me, you know where to reach me! A special thank you to Majorly for all his time and effort he has placed in my nomination. Once again, thank you all for your helpful comments. Now off to new admin school! Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheshire

Hi, with regard to the article places of interest in Cheshire i see that it has not been nominated for AfD since you pointed out to me that it might. I think that one of the main reasons for this is that many other pages are list for a certain subject say characters in a film, TV program or settlements in a county. In this instance the articles which list the settlements in each county which are found at List of places in England are very good examples. I will happily look into the Cheshire Wiki project page aswell. =] Cheers Dewster^{_^*'_} 12:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ddstretch

Hey there, hows things going? Been a long time! JFBurton (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome back. I hope to see you adding content to articles soon.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

I've sent you one regarding your concerns in Epbr's talk page. bibliomaniac15 21:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!  DDStretch  (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt your editing, but I've left you an email. :) Epbr123 (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the email. I've only just noticed it (I'm having a shift around with email systems), but I'll reply to it soon.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

RFA?

bibliomaniac15 21:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: If you accept, I'll create the nom page. Please reply promptly on my talk page.

I would also love to support this nomination. You've been a pleasure to work with and are an asset to the project. --Jza84 |  Talk  03:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(Copy of my response to Bibliomaniac15 on his talk page) Many thanks for thinking I would make a good administrator and offering to nominate me. I don't actually have any desire to be an administrator, and I'm not at all sure I would be a suitable person to either be one or be nominated to be one. At the moment, I find myself wanting to edit and create articles without having sufficient time available to do so. I think I must try to devote more time to editing and creating articles, as it would let my editing colleagues and friends down, especially within the Cheshire Wikiproject if I did not. The problem is that being an administrator would necessarily mean becoming committed to engaging in more administrator-related issues which would eat away at my editing time; I am already behind what I had hoped I would get done because of various other calls on my time, some unexpected, from family and home commitments. So, once again, many thanks for thinking I might be suitable, but I don't think it would be fair on my editing colleagues and the greater aims of the project for me to accept. Best wishes.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand completely. I'm in a simillar position myself. However, the tools sure look more and more tempting!... maybe it's something for you to consider down the line? You call of course, --Jza84 |  Talk  13:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you would make a good admin but (selfishly) I'm glad you've decided not to go for it, at least for the present. There are so few doing anything about Cheshire topics – you are needed! Best wishes. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand fully, but I can't say I'm not disappointed. I'll be watching you still, but in the meantime, happy editing! bibliomaniac15 20:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you don't want to be an administrator? :) Rudget (review) 15:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Aaaahhhh! What I want to do and what I need to do may not always coincide. There are too many editing jobs I feel I both want and need to do for me to consider being an administrator, and I don't think I would want the stress of it, to be honest. I see enough stupidity, edit warring, POV wrangles already in the areas I like to watch and have an interest in, and I'm not sure becoming a magnet for it by having some tools that enable me to come into contact with more of it would be good for me. Ask me again in September when I'll be back from a long holiday abroad in a country that blocks access to wikipedia, and it is just marginally conceivable that I might have changed my mind.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Revert if you want.

I was just bored that's all, I was just looking for something worth reverting. Believe me, I'm not coming back to the article, I was just looking for something to revert. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Great Sankey et al.

I agree that Otolemur crassicaudatus is being a touch on the overzealous side, but sometimes the best (only) response is just to walk away for a while. As to the ancient parishes article, it looks to be coming along nicely! I think it would be possible to put in a references column without wasting too much space (eg see Listed buildings in Nantwich, Cheshire), but I don't think it's actually necessary as long as the sources are clear in one way or another. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I did take exception to the highly inaccurate edit summary he used about all of us on Smallthorne and managed to get an apology from him when I took it to WP:Wikiquette Alerts. I'll devote my time more to getting articles written. I'll probably do what you suggest over the next few days for Ancient parishes of Cheshire, but I stkll wonder whether we are going to get a string of footnotes with superscripted letters quite a way into the alpahbet in the actual Notes section. I guess the only way to find out is to actually do it, though! Do you have any thoughts about whether to move all of the current notes into the new section or leave them where they are?  DDStretch  (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Most tables I've seen go with consolidating all citations covering each row into the references column, but I think it's up to you to balance what looks best and is most informative for the particular article. By the way, let me know when you've finished a draft, so I can make sure it's listed on the portal -- I've missed it off the past few updates because of the in-progress notice. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought you did a great job on the Great Sankey page Ddstretch. I'm just starting out on Wikipedia and aspire to your level of ability. Any tips you can over to a Wikipedia Newbie Leebobs (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment and praise. I think the article could still do with some work, but it was only brought to my attention because of all the tagging that it got and repeatedly got whilst I was trying to address previously added tags: I don't know that area, and was almost "flying blind" by just using various internet sites to search online refs that could be added and remove the tags.

For advice on how to begin writing stuff, it depends to some extent of what areas you want to concentrate on: if geographical locations are close enough, and the UK is a near enough place to look at, try looking at what some of the various Featured Articles for places in the UK look like: Chew Stoke, Exmoor, Bath, Somerset, Somerset. and Chat Moss give a wide-range of different sized geographical locations. For a highly active local project which is very successful in achieving a good rate of Featured Articles and Good Articles, the Greater Manchester Project would be a very useful one to look at to see the process of getting an article into shape (the Peterloo Massacre is a current one, for example.) I watch that project, though my own activities are mostly in the Cheshire Project. Background to all this is The UK Geography Project and its talk pages, and the UK places guidelines. That's a lot of information, so looking at a small number of articles, watching a successful project at work, and doing more actual editing yourself as a means of active learning would be my bottom-line practical advice. I hope that helps.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation for Scotland article

As an agreement between editors at Scotland seems ever more unlikely, some users have decided to contact mediation. However, mediation require the acceptance of all involved parties. Would you be willing to accept? Thanks for your compliance...--Cameron (t|p|c) 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I was seeing the messages, and I replied saying I was reluctantly agreeing just as you were writing this invitation. Thanks!  DDStretch  (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Awarding Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for this, my first ever barnstar.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

English exonyms

Hello again DDStretch! I hope all is well,

I have started a sandbox page (at User:Jza84/Sandbox) as a draft project guideline for non-English place names in the UK per the discussions made on the WP:UKCITIES talk page.

It's far from finished, but would appreciate your input as I know you had some good points during the last discussion. I hope it helps somewhat. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made some revised suggestions at User:Ghmyrtle/Sandbox 2. I am conscious that this may not give as much rigour as some might like - though personally I tend towards flexibility rather than rigidity of approach - and also that it tends to focus on the Wales/England issue, which has been my main concern and has generated many words on many talk pages. I haven't changed Jza84's suggested usage table, simply because I'm undecided how useful it would be (although I'm very grateful for the stimulus it has offered). All comments and thoughts welcome. I'm copying this message to various pages, but I suggest that further discussion should be coordinated at the WP:UKCITIES talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Peterloo Massacre

Regarding your edit summary in the article, I will tell you to read WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASSMENT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing I have written there constituted incivility or harrassment. Since you have been warned about that kind of tagging on a number of times previously by administrators, I would say what I wrote was an attempt to help you avoid further action being taken by administrators if other issues come to their notice. I see you have now deleted the message I posted, but it can still be checked by looking through the history of your talk page if people with to.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

King's CCF etc.

• Cheers for the heads-up, i had noticed the situation but not got round to advancing my argument yet. i'll do so with haste. tomasz. 12:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources and Peterloo Massacre

Quoting you: "Thanks for the responses. I do accept that what you say is likely to be the case, from my own knowledge of research standards in my own specialist subject, but your sentence: "First, early twentieth-century history sources are not known for undergoing the same kind of rigorous peer review and fact-checking that current historical scholarship undergoes" would seem still be to be a claim that can be verified with reference to suitable sources in the same way that one would require for facts claimed in articles submitted to this FA process, particularly as it it doesn't form part of the policies you quoted, except by some inference and extra unreferenced facts that otherwise could be labelled by some as WP:OR. I know this matter is now a diversion from the excellent article (and excellent review comments which have been made, by the way) but I think the policies for verification, or the inferences one draws from them, can be assessed according to the same rules they are a part of. Whether they need to be is a different question. However, I think this might be continued elsewhere if desired. DDStretch (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)"

• Wikipedia policies do not outline what is reliable and what is not reliable for each discipline and subject matter. Wikipedia relies on its editors to make these distinctions (for good and for ill). I'm sure I could dig up a book on historiography somewhere for you on this matter, but usually that is not required. The distinction between what is a reliable source and what is an unreliable source and why in history are obvious to anyone who studies these fields. Usually an explanation of why that distinction exists suffices. No one demands, for example, that people who are writing science articles source the statement: "Textbooks are reliable sources of basic scientific information". (I must point out that, to me, the obviousness of "Early twentieth-century historical sources are unreliable" and "Scientific textbooks are reliable" is the same.) Part of knowing which sources are reliable is knowing the discipline itself, as you must be aware. Awadewit (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that of "common knowledge" within a discipline may not be common knowledge outside it (as I know very well). Given that it is an issue of common knowledge of that kind, the question then arises as to when the process of verification can reasonably stop. For wikipedia, this needs consideration in a context where all kinds of checks and balances are already part of the process because anyone can edit material and anyone can state who they are and what they are experts in on their user pages. I'm not doubting what you are saying at all, by the way, I'm just stating that it seems as if there are points at which verification need to come to an end (otherwise we end up doing nothing except dive into a "recursive black-hole" of increasingly higher-level verifications.) I'm not sure whether enough attention is being given to a (reasonable) requirement for (a sensible) consistency when editors or reviewers claim expertise as an end-stop to the verification process, meaning that some of the claims they make can be accepted at face-value as "common knowledge" or not by others who are not familiar with their own area of acceptance. In the context of wikipedia and its policies about verification and reliable sources it really is an interplay between common knowledge, expertise, and Argument from authority, and I have a suspicion that an airing of the issues may be useful from time to time.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize that the argument I provided was partly an argument from authority but it was also partly based on reasoning. I would say that since it went beyond "you need to change this because I said so and I know what I am talking about" and attempted to explain the reasons (different historical methods, fact-checking, peer reviewing), there is less of a need to appeal to sources. If we had to appeal to sources in every instance like this, sourcing and FAC would grind to a halt. :) Therefore, I make a distinction between authority + reasoning and just authority. Awadewit (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Scotland article

It's a problem I've faced for a long long time. It's a blackspot on Wikipedia that needs more quality editors like yourself there. Struggling for time now, but I'll have a flick through the threads later. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Chester: Governance

Hi DDS. I don't normally edit other people's sandboxes but I've been reformatting the existing Refs in Chester to try to get them all up to an acceptable and consistent level. On doing so, I realised that you (and others) had probably started working on your chosen sections. (Apologies if I'm a little premature in doing this so soon in the task.) Therefore I've copied the reformatted ref into your User talk:Ddstretch/Sandbox 5. I've also added the twin towns bit as I'm a little confused as to where this should go. There was a list format in the Governance section and a duplicated prose format in Culture. Have removed the duplication from Culture and replaced Governance with the prose. Hope you don't mind, wont touch it again. Cheers, Snowy 1973 (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Snowy. It is no problem at all, and thanks for helping out. Please feel free to edit what's in the sandbox if you need to in future.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheshire parishes

Hello DDS. You would have more luck contacting the county council, who oversee parishes. A full list of Cheshire parishes can be found at http://www.cheshire.gov.uk/Parish/AZParishList.htm - each of the parishes has a page there, which contains contact details. Not all parishes have email addresses listed, but most do, and they all have postal/phone details. You will also see an email link to a Lyn Raynor at Cheshire CC who may also be able to help with your enquiries - if she cannot answer your questions, I would imagine she would certainly be able to point you in the right direction of someone who can. Neıl ☎ 12:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I know about that site, but it only deals with parishes that appear to already have a parish council, meeting, or joint ones of these. There are some which exist according to some official sources (like Crewe, near to Farndon), and yet seem absent from other official lists. I didn't notice Liz Raynor's details last time I looked, and so I think I'll contact her. Many thanks for the reply.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Religion of Cheshire

Hi, and thanks for initiating an article on this. When I removed the {{main}}-link from the main article, I was doing so "as a reader" as opposed to "as an editor", and I can see that those interests can rub against each other.

As an editor, the usefulness as a placeholder is clear to see. It encourages someone to step up and create the article, and it stands as a flag that there is some work to do.

From the reader's point of view however, they see an instruction at the top of the section, and are told to click here for more information. They click on it (keep in mind that most editors have never heard of "red link means no article") and find themselves presented with a screen saying that there is no article. As a reader who does not know how Wikipedia works, I would become rather annoyed ("Why did you fool me to go to an an article which is not there!"), and readers tend to outnumber editors, especially on an important article like this.

But I see you've done a lot of good work with that article, and I see that you are still working on improving it. Excellent job with this topic, and a big thank you for doing so! Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I agree with you, and so I've immediately created Religion of Cheshire as a stub, and will expand upon it over the next few days. Your removal of it was a correct nudge to get something started on it, so thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

{{Cheshire-general-stub}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 01:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Denshaw

Hello, Denshaw's page on Wikipedia made the national and London news yesterday after it had been vandalised (you may have seen it on BBC North West Tonight??). I was wondering, to improve the Governance section, does Young have anything for Denshaw? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello there. I didn't see the TV program (Stoke-on-Trent is actually assigned to the Birmingham bit of the BBC local TV, as we are technically in the West Midlands, even though many people here look to Manchester rather than Birmingham.) The situation is a little complicated as the various units of which Denshaw has been a member have also been part of a three-way split (I almost said "fight") between Lancashire, Cheshire, and Yorkshire at times in the past. However, taking what is already written as a basis, there are some more bits that can be added about the wapentake it was in, and various ecclesiastical bits of extra information. I'll add them if that's all right, though the ecclesiastical stuff mkght be better placed in a different section to Governance (as I look upon that more as a civil governance section) What would you suggest?  DDStretch  (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Navenby

Hiya, Haven't finished the history/governance stuff yet. Lot more complicated than I originally thought, and was disturbed while trying to write it. (Easter holidays, kids etc). It will be correct (I hope) once done, and will also include much more of what you suggested - I promise! --seahamlass 15:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC) PS: This is where I got the civil parish/break from Rome stuff [3]

I'm glad you are finding my suggestions of some use. The article is already quite good, and I think the additions could make it even better. You are right that the situation is a bit complicated. The site where you got the information from is technically correct, but is easily able to be misleading in the way it is written. The term "civil parish" only came into use after around about the 1889 bill. Before then, the usual term to use is "Ancient parish". The administrative duties parishes acquired started with the Henry VIII bills and were further added to by Elizabeth I and following governments. The 1889 separation of ecclesiastical and civil functions by establishing two different kinds of parish that each dealt with one kind of function was the end-point of this gradual change. Lincolnshire was below the so-called "parish line" which makes things simpler (see Township (England) for a bit about this): it therefore tended to have single-township parishes. For counties above the parish line, there was the additional complication of sometimes very large ancient parishes that were sometimes split up into chapelries and which sometimes contained many townships both in the parish and in the chapelries (see Ancient parishes of Cheshire for a work-in-progress to illustrate how complicated it can then be.) The parishes often had detached parts which were embedded in other areas and even in other hundreds or wapentakes. These all underwent a more radical change in the late nineteenth century (the 1889 act and some a bit before then), with many of the townships and single-township chapelries becoming civil parishes in their own right. If you want any assistance, please feel free to get back in touch with me.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again - could you take another look? I'm getting a bit bogged down in acts, reforms, etc? Just don't want to get it wrong. Feel free to tweak/tear apart. Many thanks!--seahamlass 18:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I read it, made a few tweaks, and think it reads all right now. So, I've voiced my support for it to get FA status.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey - your support swung it! I just logged on for another tweaking session and there was that shiny little star! Whhoo-hoo! (As Homer Simpson would say!). Many, many thanks! --seahamlass 07:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Rutter

Have I summarised your e-mail fairly/correctly on my talkpage? Fainites ^barley 21:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, absolutely right. Its the working class equivalent of 'pax' in terms of its use. In my day - if you wanted out in the playground you held up crossed fingers and said 'fains' or 'fainites'. 'Fainites barley' is a more London version. The 'barley' probably comes from 'parley' as in to parley - talk truce.Fainites ^barley 22:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Aha! I knew my memory was probably right about that: I think we used "barley" where I came from (Cheshire), and I can't recall Lincolnshire, which we moved to. There were some isolates (Leicester springs to mind.)  DDStretch  (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that some areas combined the two. My guess is that 'fains' is OE and 'barley' would be OF. I recall it was extremely effective - even when it was considered to hav been used unfairly - a great social error. On the other hand, someone who ignored it was considered beyond the pale. Fainites ^barley 22:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think at some of the boundaries there may have been a greater incidence of dual-use. I have this idea (I'll have to dig out the book and check tomorrow now), that two other words used in parts of the UK were "Cream" and "Kings". If I'm right, and I may not be, I couldn't guess at the origin of those. I agree: it was respected to a person and people who ignored it were almost banished from being able to play with you. If new children moved in, it sometimes caused some problems before they learned the right local word. I remember a girl started who said they used "pax", and we all thought she had airs and graces above her station ("pax" was, as you said, viewed as being more upper class, and I was definitely in a lower class area myself.) Do children still use these or even know about them, I wonder?  DDStretch  (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Now I think of it we also had a boy from a prep school for one year who used 'pax' which was considered dead posh (this was in a school on a council estate). I don't know if children now use the same ones. Mine haven't heard of 'fainites' but they definitely have their own words and indeed pronunciation. Oyle of Woyt is a classic. I remember there being a radio 4 programme about the extent to which old words and regional pronunciations continued in playgrounds long beyond their continuance in adult life. Viking words and pronunciations up north were given as an example.

I feel a whole new article coming on! Or even two. One on general continuance of old words and pronunciation and one on the use and force of 'fainites' type words - almost like a magic charm. There must be some reason why these words are so powerful and why children who didn't respect them seemed like outlaws. Another interesting area is cultural aspects. When I was at school the worst sin was to tell tales or sneak. Local children call this 'dobbing'. You don't dob yer mates in. However, a friend who works in schools in London where they have 68 different first languages spoken says many other cultures simply don't have this prohibition. If you walk into a classroom containing a dozen or so different nationalities and say 'who did this', most of the class point to the culprit and say 'he did sir' and this is considered perfectly OK (aswell as making his job much easier). When I was at school, white working class and middle class culture meant that we would all have sat there in silence, even if we were all kept in as a punishment. This of course did give bullies an absolute free hand. Fainites ^barley 08:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Kings" is probably short for "the Kings Peace", as in keeping it. Can't even begin to guess at "cream" though - (unless its a corruption of the Queens Peace).Fainites ^barley 22:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So "fainites barley" is a border use then. Do you remember the Perishers comic strip? They said 'fainites barley'. I wonder where the writer was brung up. Fainites ^barley 13:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Aha! Maurice Dodd was born in Hackney. Of course the Perishers themselves live in Croynge. Perhaps he used fainites and barley to get maximum nationwide coverage. I expect if we started an article based on Opie - other sources would arrive as the article developed if you see what I mean. Does he deal with the etymology of the words? Fainites ^barley 13:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I had a look and although the Opie book has been reprinted it's not a different edition. I wonder if anybody has done any more recent work in this area or is there's any comparable work on other countries? Perhaps if we started an article called "Truce words" we'd find out from other editors. Fainites ^barley 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

4/22 DYK

On 22 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Denshaw, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 02:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Giano comment

Hi, I have taken the liberty of moving your response from "my" section to one of "your" own - protocol is that we do not edit each others sections - rather than requesting you or a Clerk do so. Also, thank you for your understanding words. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I obviously didn't know the protocol, and so thanks for editing it into a more appropriate format. I do think Giano needs to take more care, however. As Until(1 == 2) wrote, he can be forceful (I have used robust and assertive in the past) without using the kinds of language he did use, which may stand a good chance of obscuring the power of his arguments and making the entire discussion unfruitful. It is possible to state his position without the use of such unfortunate phrases, and it is more likely to maintain the collaborative nature of wikipedia as well.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I've been following this argument from the sidelines, but my general understanding on the subject is that infoboxes have never been mandatory, and for the most part, are implemented on a project by project basis. When that process runs into an objection, its use is then discussed on an article by article basis. WikiProjects do not exist to enforce topical style guidelines; rather, they may make recommendations and expect users to understand why those guidelines are used. Infoboxes have had quite their share of controversy over the years, so one should not be surprised by an objection to their use, and one should endeavor to meet any objection to their use with a discussion of their value. Many of these arguments can be found embedded in WP:IBT. You might find it interesting to follow what projects like WikiProject Composers and WikiProject Opera have to say on the subject, as both of those projects recommend not using infoboxes on composer articles unless consensus for their use is arrived at on the article talk page. I hope some of these ideas help you. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments. I was aware that wikiprojects cannot enforce use (or non-use) of infoboxes, and if you saw me mention the architecture wikiproject in the discussions, it was only to point out that their advice ran counter to the "anti infobox" people who were arguing (amongst other things) that infoboxes in articles dealing with architectural issues should never be used. I've always thought that infoboxes should never be made mandatory, even though some have characterized (incorrectly) my position as being that, apparently solely on the basis that I do not think one could say at this stage that they should never be used in articles dealing with historic buildings (they thus commit a fallacy based on the Law of the excluded middle.) Thanks for the pointers. If the discussions calm down a bit and resume, I think what you gave me is certainly worthwhile. Once again, thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You are being far too kind. I do not believe I have helped you at all, but I appreciate the summary of the dispute and your position on the matter as that was what I was really looking for in the first place. I do wonder about something, though. Has anyone used collapsible infoboxes? And, wouldn't that solve the problem? Let me know. Viriditas (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, here's my take on the infobox discussion. I don't at all buy the aesthetic argument, far too subjective, but I am reminded of an objection I made during development of the Sale article. I couldn't see the point of the infobox duplicating information that was in the lead. In the case of Little Moreton Hall that's all an infobox would be doing; but in the case of, say SS Christopher Columbus the infobox provides a summary of the article. I think that's the criteria that makes the most sense to me, and it has the benefit of being quantitative, not qualitative. If everything in the infobox is in the lead, then no need for the infobox. If it isn't, then there's a prima facie case for having an infobox. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reponses to both) Collapsible infoboxes might be a solution in certain cases, though I doubt it would satisfy the people who seem to have a visceral aversion to them, or who believe that by using them we have or are pandering to a person who has "the attention span of a gnat". In this particular instance, I doubt it would work, because some of its fields seem unsuitable (the town one, for example), and even if we missed that field out, the infobox most relevant would, as Malleus states, only duplicate what would be found, more accurately, in the lead.

It seems to me that these considerations, just previously mentioned above, outweigh the weak argument from authority that was used in WT:CHES, or the various disparaging comments thrown at people who did not agree that an infobox should not be used, or the attempt at argument based on user-models and usability that were advanced (but which were either flawed by insufficient testing even for an informal illustration, or flawed because the argument could be undermined by a plausible alternative explanation based on the base rate fallacy (I mean the argument about numbers of successful FA articles that did not contain an infobox here) Becuase they outweigh them, they should have been the ones used first. I am sad that the person identified as an expert in this matter chose to make disparaging remarks (not on WT:CHES, though) about attention spans of gnats first: not the behaviour one would expect of an expert, in fact, and I hope it was a momentary lapse, even though other discussions, elsewhere, suggest it is not. I don't think the behaviour of those who seemed to react with such outrage at being questioned is a credit to them or to wikipedia, and if their decisions are based on empirical findings, one would have expected them to use them first. Some did, but, sadly, others didn't.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Truce terms

I found these two references but can't access them on the net. Do you have access to the right kind of academic database? other clues I've followed up tend to lead back to Opie. However, I did find a questionnaire to fill in wherein you give your date of birth and place of childhood and truce terms - for a book thats coming out in 2009!

Ian Beckwith and Bob Shirley, ‘Truce Terms: A Lincolnshire Survey’, Local Historian 11:8 (1975), 441-4

Kate and Steve Roud, ‘Truce Terms in Croydon, Surrey, 1988’, Talking Folklore 7 (1989), 15-20

Fainites ^barley 19:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for the references. Unfortunately, I have no access to any academic library now, though I have been trying to find out if I could: I doubt I would be able to at the last place I worked at. In terms of an article, I think it would be a very good idea. I could certainly work at it with you, if that is your idea. (WE could have a map of the areas and truce terms used, and I have the facilities to make such maps.) The Opie book gives some historical references, but I wouldn't say it was too good on the origins of the terms. It does, however, suggest that "Barley" was referred to in the poem Sir Gawain and The Green Knight! which would be a good one to put in. Strangely, it doesn't seem to suggest barley may have come about from a distortion of "Belay!", which is what I would have thought (other meanings of "belay" are "stop", "cease" and "secure", all of which could have been more obvious terms for the truce term.)  DDStretch  (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - lets do that article! Good idea about 'belay'. I'd always assumed 'barley' came from 'parley', to talk truce, from 'parler', to talk - which is why I used it as my talk sign, but I don't know. Does this mean that instead of inviting people to talk I'm shrieking "stop" at them? I found a source about the origin of 'fainites' soemwhere. I've found one site that mentions truce words in NZ - where 'pax' has become 'pecs'. There are odd discussions on the web with people swapping memories about it but not that many scholarly works, certainly not along the lines of Opie. I've got a copy of Opie arriving soon. I'm impressed about the maps! Do you draw it and then scan it or is it all much more brilliantly and technonolgically clevererer than that? Fainites ^barley 22:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I managed to get hold of that 1988 paper and was devastated to discover that in Croydon, "fainites is considered to be totally lacking in all street credibility". Fainites ^barley 06:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - May 2008

Delivered May 2008 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *'s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 10:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Women's sufferage in the UK

Dear Ddstretch,

On the Wiki page dealing with the 1832 Reform Act you have querried this sentence:-

The Act also specifically disenfranchised women, sparking the British suffrage movement

I have querried it too. I've removed it a few times as I think its best left unsaid. It gets put back on within 24 hours!

To say that one of the main purposes of the Reform Act was to disenfranchise woman I think is totally misleading. I doubt if anyone in 1832 thought woman were enfranchised.

I wish people maintaining woman voted before 1832 would come up with examples. I know of only one example for certain - Elizabeth Copley in 1554. Her husband had been Gatton's only elector when he died in 1549 his son was a minor - so she did the electing. No one challenged what she did - perhaps few knew about it. If her voting had been challenged it would probably have been made void. (Source "The Elizabethan House of Commons" by J. E. Neale page 177.)

It is a possibility that four woman voted in 1754 in Appleby. They lived in almshouses which occupied burgage plots. Four votes went with these burgage plots - and four votes were made in respect of these plots. But I'm unsure if the women voted or men voted on their behalf - I think this later case is probably what happened. These votes in any case were challenged - (they were only accepted because the returning officer was biased) but the case was never heard as the opposing sides agreed to have the election made void.

I suspect suffragettes in the later part of 19th century found the odd and very rare case were woman had voted prior to 1832 - like Elizabeth Copley - and having found such odd instances like to then claim it was the 1832 Reform Act and only that Act that disenfranchised them. This idea is now becoming gospel on wikipedia.

Paul Buttle

Cumbria

buttlekeswick@hotmail.com 217.155.193.205 (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: I remembered today that I had recently read it was not unknown for women to vote in vestry elctions for parish officials. Maybe that's the basis for claiming some women had the franchise before 1832. But if so the 1832 Act wouldn't have effected their doing in vestry elections afterwards.217.155.193.205 (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Truce terms

I've started it with just a quick paragraph - enough so it doesn't get instantly deleted. See you over on the talkpage! Fainites ^barley 22:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello there DDStretch!!

Can I bring to your attention Yorkshirian (talk · contribs · logs)? This gentleman is a self styled "traditional counties" advocate, who, seeks the independance of Yorkshire. He's the subject of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian (which I think wouldn't necessarily be good for you to take part in, unless you felt strongly enough), which details some problems. There have been some additional shuffles at WP:PLACE and WP:UKCOUNTIES (the latter of which I know you have passed comment about before). I hope all is well, --Jza84 |  Talk  00:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Wetman

Well, I'm just going to leave a neutral message on his talk page informing him that the wikiquette alert has reached a consensus regarding the matter and then leave it at that. I suppose that's all I can do. Asarelah (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate your support on this issue. I think you may be onto something with your groupthink hypothosis, someone (I think it was probably Sluezzin, there was no signature), claimed that I hadn't even brought the issue to Wetman's talk page before filing the alert, which simply isn't true. He hadn't even bothered to read the first post of the thread before leaping down our throats. This whole thing is insane. Edit:Nevermind, he just fixed it and apologized. Perhaps he's more reasonable that I had thought. Asarelah (talk)

Removal of a phot link

I'd appreciate knowing why the link to the Mow Cop sunset photo isn't an acceptable link, and you've threatened to block me?

86.135.246.19 (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Frodsham

Hi, I feel that this discussion is in danger of getting bogged down, so I though I'd come here to clarify some things. First, regarding Frodsham, I'm happy that you provided a quote from the book, and that the book is referenced. I accept that you believed the reference was already clear in the article, but it wasn't obvious to me and that resulted in my edit.

I am not on a crusade to remove the term "British Isles" from Wikipedia. But I *am* looking at articles that use the term using the "What Links Here" link, and I *am* checking to see if the usage is correct. For your own part, please assume good faith and I'm not sure that you meant to claim that I am trying to remove the term "British Isles" from Wikipedia. This argument has been demonstrated over time to be the last argument used when editors (unfortunately the trend is that they are British) or anon IP vandals take offense to corrections that result in the removal of the phrase. Some editors take it personally if they are asked (politely) to provide a reference.

Even under intense bullying and ad hominen attacks, I always assume good faith, and I'm always happy to discuss the edits, and I'm always happy to be corrected in turn, if that is the case. I am not on an anti-British crusade, or even have anti-British leanings. It's easy for editors to leap to this incorrect conclusion, and to feel this justifies very bad behaviour, but I will not be bullied by a very small number of editors (and you can see from my Talk page who they are), and I hope (and believe) that you will judge my actions solely on my edits, and my reactions.

I hope we meet on Wikipedia again under better circumstances. Peace. --Bardcom (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I also avoid ad hominem attacks as they usually are fallacious, and contribute nothing positive to any typical debate on wikipedia (if you see my research areas on my main page, you will appreciate why I should be committed to these ideals.) In that light, can I reassure you that I did not intend to write that you were on a crusade to remove "British Isles" from wikipedia. The only relevant sentence was in my reply about the book's accessibility and was placed on two talk pages, where I stated "You are obviously trying very hard to find a reason to remove the phrase "British Isles" from an article", which I thought made it clear that I was referring to an article (Frodsham in this case) and not all articles. I should have perhaps been clearer and stated "this article" instead of "an article", and so I apologise if any misunderstanding came about by some clumsy wording on my part. I also thank you for allowing me to clear this up. I believe I was therefore assuming good faith, and your request that I abide by it was a bit unnecessary, though it is always useful to remind people at times. I hope this is acceptable.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of a phot link

I'd appreciate knowing why the link to the Mow Cop sunset photo isn't an acceptable link, and you've threatened to block me?

86.135.246.19 (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your participation at my recent Request for adminship. I’ll keep your concerns in mind as I continue to work within the project. I hope you find I live up to your expectations of administrators. Best, Risker (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding response. I would have liked to give a definite support to you, but thought my concern was of sufficient relevance. I gave the comment in the expectation that it would not have any great deciding role in the outcome: if it had seemed to have been likely to have a greater influence, I would have either not given it, or else given you weak support (does that make sense?)  DDStretch  (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Note

Hi Ddstretch. Possibly it's a difference from one side of the pond to the other, but sophistry as fallacious argumentation isn't an unusual usage of the word in my experience. Of course, Argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy by itself, and I'd say near to sophistry (much like America's television news talking heads--fair, I think, to call them sophists). At any rate, I didn't mean just this.

I'm not sure if you believe me, but I really don't relish being in this situation. He's no enemy of mine, but I've seen him demoralize so many other good editors. If he recognized that there's always room for improvement, and actually worked toward it, I'd be willing to support in the future. You might even find I'd be first in line. Anyways, I respect that we disagree and I certainly don't think you've been incoherent or malicious. I hope one day we have the chance to work together on something positive, so I can demonstrate I'm neither spiteful nor incoherent myself. Cheers, --JayHenry (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar in appreciation of your assistance and support in helping myself and fellow editors deal a difficult individual. Asarelah (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is for all of your assistance with the Wikiquette alert. Put it onto your user page and wear it with pride. =) Asarelah (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Ddstretch/Archive 3! I'd like to leave a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully today (and to my surprise) with 83 supports, 4 opposes, and 2 neutral. What I have taken back from my RFA is that I've perhaps been too robust in debate and I will endevour to improve upon that aspect of my usership. I would like to thank you again and state here that I will not let any of my fellow Wikipedian's down. Thanks again! --Jza84 |  Talk  11:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever...

been offered an adminship nomination? I've seen you everywhere, and you were brought to my attention, indirectly, by Malleus and Jza84. What's your edit count? Any major conflicts? any blocks? Anything holding you back from a 7 day visit to hell known as RfA? Give me a shout on my talkpage, I can work up a nom for you. Any co-nom ideas? I'm willing to bet there are a few that will see this message and offer. Your work here, from everything I've seen, is absolutely stellar. I'm watching your page, feel free to respond here if you wish. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Keeper, Thanks for the message. I have been asked formally before here and you can see what my response was. I am still not champing at the bit, and I have far too much editing work on articles to do. My time is limited anyway, with other (real world) commitments, and I'm not sure I would be either a good administrator, or continue to be an effective editor on wikipedia if I ever became one.

Having said all that, some of the changes needed I've seen on pages I edit have made my fingers itch to be able to sort them out more quickly with some of the tools administrators have, and there is at least one major re-structuring job of categories related to UK geographical locations I want to do that would, if agreed, be made much much easier if I did have the tools. My edit count is around 9000 (see here for a summary. As for blocks, I have had none (nor any formal warnings).

For major conflicts, I have had some heated discussions which no doubt some would dredge up as being larger than they were if I went in for an RfA, and many of these are to do with what I see as "unprofessional behaviour" on other editors' parts, though the outrage that being pulled up sometimes resulted in them making false accusations of uncivil behaviour on my part. I research in critical thinking and how to improve this in various areas, and so it is unlikely that I would be uncivil deliberately, and I try not to be, since one can be much more effective and helpful by remaining polite.

Nevertheless, here are some disagreements I have had:

1. One administrator who has an RfC open on him at the moment (JzG) may well have insinuated that I was a "polite yet vexatious editor" merely for daring to object to a well-established editor (GianoII) saying I and others had "the attention span of a gnat" when we asked him for clarification about his view concerning infoboxes (that happened within the last 6 weeks here), and I view this as ludicrous. Still, it may be dredged up in any RfA because I blundered into the middle of something whose controversial nature I did not fully understand at the time: the action to take against a "valued well-established editor for incivility or other instances of poor behaviour" (see section 51 here. I can't find the archive that contains JzG's apparent claim, but it was in a motion to vary an ArbComm ruling against User:Giano II.
2. Some other heated discussions involved an editor saying my behaviour was completely unacceptable when I pressed him hard, yet politely, over what I saw was a completely unacceptable series of AfD requests, based on fallacious reasoning on his part (see here, and here, and his message on my talk page here.
3. Epbr123 certainly went to town on what he saw was my behaviour when I opposed him on his RfA here though I had supported Malleus on his first RfA. He was ultimately unsuccessful in my eyes and other's eyes, but the qualiity of some of the viewpoints expressed on other RfAs lead me to be cautious about dismissing these in the context of any RfA for myself, even if they are not supportable, in my opinion.
4. Finally WP:WQA#User:Wetman is a more recent example which contains a past disagreement I had with another editor held in high regard by some.

   All these disagreements may well produce some adverse comments on any RfA, but perhaps I am being too pessimistic. I certainly feel that hard critical thinking and close argument, with which I was daily exposed to in my academic profession, is apparently not wanted by some sometimes very vocal editors and administrators on wikipedia, and when one indulges in it, one is either attacked, or ignored, or accused of being uncivil. It is for that reason that I would be very wary to agree to any RfA on my behalf. I may be persuaded otherwise, though. Does that help at all, or have I driven you off, screaming into the distance with horror?  DDStretch  (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If you decide to go for it I wish you all the luck in the world. Jza84 got through pretty much unscathed, and you very likely would as well I think. All I'd say is that you need to be absolutely certain that on the off-chance it didn't go the right way you'd still be here doing what you're doing now. Unless you've been through the RfA mincer it's difficult to appreciate just how much of an ego bruiser it can be. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, what you write, Malleus, is a serious issue I would also have to carefully consider. Similarly, given the amount time taken up dealing with sometimes petty objections to just normal editing decisions at the moment, one wonders how demoralised one would also become if one got more of that by virtue of sometimes carrying out adminstrator actions.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(Hello, Ddstretch) For what it's worth, and as one who stuck my disagreeing nose into one of the conflicts mentioned above, I would like to emphasize that there was nothing there that would make me consider voicing an oppose. I came here to say that yours was one of two statements at Malleus Fatuarum's RFA that made me curious enough to review suitability, something I don't do very often with editors I am unfamiliar with. I still disagree with the general drift of the mentioned Wikiquette thread, but that doesn't affect what I look for in an administrator. Yep, I think (hope) you're being too pessimistic. ---Sluzzelin talk

(to DDStretch: Perfectly understandable and reasonable response. I would not nominate a content builder/editor for adminship if I thought for one moment that they would stop editing in ways they found to be productive/useful/therefore enjoyable and rewarding. Some get kicks outta blocking at AIV. Some like to carry on at ANI. Policy wonks, vandal wonks, meta wonks, social wonks, and content wonks. I very carefully consider who I think would make best use of tools when I approach people or agree to nominate. Jza84 was obvious just by looking at a mere 100 contribs that he would sail through RfA. Over 95% of the community agreed with Pedro's and my assessment. And not because I have any expectation that he'll suddenly stop doing what's rewarding and important to him and start jackhammering vandals. Unless he wants to. If you strongly feel that you'd contribute to the article building of Wikipedia less, or be somehow hindered by the extra buttons, I will refuse to nominate and probably oppose a nomination. If you agree with me that Wikipedia needs the dedicated content builders, of which you are certainly one, to have as much freedom in editing as I do, with the tools that are available on the other side of an admittedly hellish candidate approval process, I'll do a nomination. Bibliomaniac nommed earlier this year, and you mentioned September. There's no rush (especially if your RL plans are still carrying you literally off-wiki). You would pass, you're being overly modest in your pessimism as Sluzzelin opined (I'll assume it's a British thing, because it is very similar to a Minnesota thing, where I hang a hat). The "conflicts" you listed out didn't even cause me to bat an eye. You do recall me nominating Malleus right? :) (I only typed that because I know he's reading this ;). You type eloquently, thoughtfully, civilly, directly. And on occasion, when the directness hits a nerve (usually because of the truth in your assessment of a situation), you get labelled incivil and combative, which is rather laughable. Alas, it is human nature to raise claws when feeling threatened though. Some would oppose your nomination because of their own hang-ups, but they would be, by my estimation, vastly outnumbered by supporters. Again though, to echo Malleus, if there is even a perceived chance that you would retire or disengage from the areas your needed, I will refuse to nominate. I don't see that happening though. The tools after all, are no big deal, even though the job interview is a real bitch. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has responded in this section. I've been thinking about this in great detail over the past few days, and what I have seen in various places on wikipedia has also informed my deliberations. I think there is much that needs comment about the way wikipedia does things, and there is quite a bit I could do better if I had the tools. I am now sure that my input to wikipedia would not be altered in any major way in terms of amount or type if I failed the RfA. I will be effectively away from the Internet from towards the end of July to the middle/end of August (I'll be in the middle of rural China, visiting relatives with my wife and son, and my wife wants to go on to Sichuan to do some volunteer medical work there with some of her medical colleagues, and my son and I want to stay more in their home province of Hunan, and Zhangjiajie in particular. I think the sensible thing to do is assume I'll be out of Internet access for the duration.) I'd like to give a provisional "ok, let's go for it" now, but leave it until after I return for a final say-so, as I am still more like a reluctant nominee, though not because I think I would throw in the towel if I failed to get the RfA to accept me. I'm not sure what the protocol for this would be, as Bibliomaniac did ask me some time ago, and I delayed a decision until September. May be a joint nomination with them or something similar? I'll be happy to be advised on what to do.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you've decided to go for it, then I see no reason to wait; go for it now and get it over with would be my advice. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you may well be right. I did think that having a 3 week break not so long after an RfA may send a message I didn't want sending, but perhaps not as it would be, say, 4 weeks later. Ok, then, why not bring it on! Let's do it now.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

So long as you promise not to be diverted to the dark side of wikiadmin, hanging around in sleazy places like ANI and IRC, then you'll have my support. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't used IRC for well over 15 years, and have no desire to start again now; ANI strikes me as a place of madness and inconsistency. If I got the admin job, then if ever got diverted to spend time in those places, then seeing as I would be open to recall, you should recall me immediately as being manifestly unfit. I have much more pressing article-writing desires.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Excellent decision! You're going into this with the right attitude, the right demeanor, and with promises of being the "right kind of admin". I'm privileged and honored to be able to nominate. Please click the link above and start ruminating about the questions. I'll be adding my nomination statement in there shortly. Have you received any co-nom offers or know of a good "reference" person that I can contact on your behalf? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer

Alrighty. The nomination is finished. Answer some questions (get a co-nom if you wish), "accept" the nom, and transclude it! Let me know if you need any assistance with any step along the way. I have the RfA watchlisted, I'll take care of the tally updates (and belittling the opposers zOMG - did I just say that!  :-) Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for this. I'll get to work on it. It might be good to ask Bibliomaniac if he would like to be a co-nom, since he asked me before. Would I or you do that?  DDStretch  (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll go ask Bib with my very next edit. BTW, I thoroughly enjoyed snooping through your contributions. Simply impressive. Not to get too mushy, but I'm rather in awe of your abilities. If there is something I've misstated in the nomination, please let me know so I can make repairs. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. Rudget (Help?) 16:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

People from Cheshire and places therein

I'm about to take a Wikibreak and have noticed that DShamen is having some sort of campaign to mess up [[Category:People from Cheshire]] and other Cheshire-related categories. He has deleted the category from at least one long-term resident, William Charles Cotton, (against the wording of the intro to [[Category:English people by county]]) and is messing about with places in Cheshire about which he has little or no knowledge - see his activity on John Douglas (architect) and Thomas Brassey - and I guess there are more. Can you keep an eye on him please. Best wishes as always. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

PS Did you realise that if you click on to link at the top of this page it takes you to User talk:Freechild? Or are you the same person? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'll try to keep an eye on it all. Thanks for pointing out the problem: I am sure it was all right when I added it, but if not, its been like that for some months! Aaaargh!  DDStretch  (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Notable residents (verifiability issue)

"Notable residents" (Warrington) - The disappearance of some living but obscure celebrities is welcome, but now it looks as if Warrington's famous residents since the 18th century are a couple of cricketers and a war hero, which is ridiculous.

"Common knowledge" for stuff like this should include being able to walk into the local library (or phone up) and easily find it's verifiable. George Formby lived in Warrington: to expect someone to find a written reference for that when there are thousands of people alive who attended his funeral in Warrington and his grave is visible from the road just seems silly. If you're going to rely on wikipedia for a PhD on George Formby then you shouldn't be doing a PhD.

Verifiability is no use either if the reference gets it wrong (or is made up, or misreported). E.g. in "Religion in Cheshire" it says "the boundary of the Church of England Diocese of Chester currently follows most closely the pre-1974 county boundary of Cheshire, so it includes all of Wirral, Stockport, and the Cheshire panhandle, that included Tintwistle Rural District council area". That's taken from the diocesan website, but with "all of" erroneously inserted (not all of Stockport MBC is in Chester Diocese). What is the "Cheshire panhandle"? I know, but it's not an official designation (a bit of a joke really). It also omits the "the" in "The Wirral" which suggests editing by someone who doesn't know the area - but how do you "verify" that (despite the creation of an MBC called Wirral) common usage is still "I live on the Wirral" rather "I live in Wirral"? The point is that unverified information (which can easily be verified) may well be more sound than so-called verifiable information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloovee (talk • contribs) 06:52, May 23, 2008

Thanks for the response. However, you are mistaken in your interpretation of how wikipedia requires things to be done on this matter. The appropriate issue was discussed in the section headed "Possible ambiguity in the guidelines in section 1.5.1", here. You will see that I have complied with policy on this matter, for I have not deleted the entries, merely moved them to the talk page for Warrington, with a request trhat once they have been appropriately verified, using a reliable source, they can be moved back into the article, provided that a citation to the reliable source is added at the same time. I gently suggest that you review the requirements (pointers given in the links I have provided, especially the ones found by following the links found in the question I asked), and work within the policies wikipedia has. If you dispute them, then I suggest you take this up with the people on the talk page of WP:RS. I read what you say about some sources being misleading, but this merely means one should be critical and attend to the reliability of the sources one uses, and WP:RS gives some pointers for this. As for the specific examples you provide, The use of "Wirral" versus "The Wirral" is not as clear-cut as you imagine, and the "Cheshire panhandle" would be well-known to anyone who knows about the history of the county boundaries, and it is mentioned on the Cheshire county website, if one chooses to search for the phrase on google. I suggest that these show potentially how misleading relying on simple ideas of "common knowledge" can be. Remember that the criterion for inclusion in wikipedia is verifiability by as reliable a source as possible, which is not necessarily the same as "the truth". If better reliable sources are found that improve upon information in wikiedpia, then any editor is free to edit the article and add it, but one must be prepared to justify it by adding the citation and allowing others to remove it or otherwise appropriately challenge it. If Warrington were to be nominated for FA status, then such unverified additions would certainly be challenged, and so it is best to add them at the stage of entry, which, as I've said, follows the policies wikipedia has for information about living people and other material. In the case of Religion in Cheshire, if what you say is correct, then the matter is easily solved by adding "most of" in front of Stockport. Once again, I stress that the notable residents have not been completely deleted, but are still present on Talk:Warrington where, after suitable checking and verification by means of reliable sources that are cited, they can be moved back onto the main article page. Additionally, the section on Notable Residents is currently in the form of a list, which doesn't agree with various other guidelines (see WP:UKCITIES for example.) Finally, it would help if you signed your comments by adding four tildes (~~~~) after any messages. I know this may seem hard, but I hope you can see what the rules are, and that arguing that they should not apply on a user's or an article's talk page is not effective: if you really want to change them, then go to WP:RS and discuss the matter on the talk page. I hope that helps.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Perfeddwlad and Chester

Principal cantrefi of medieval Gwynedd (traditional territorial extent)

Rhun was the oigional author of the map you see in the 1090's, his oigional source is unknown, though if I remember from my earlier conversation he works in a north Wales library somewhere. However, James Francom has reproduced another simular map above based off of other sources such as J.Beverley Smith's "Llywelyn ap Gruffudd" 1998 biography. I was still upset over Azra85 so did not respond earlier.

A cautionary note: The Doomsday Servay was taken in 1086 as you mention, but at a time in North Wales when the Normans had displaced the Welsh from their land. In 1081 Chester had captured Gwynedd's prince and imprisioned him until his escape in 1092. By 1090, all of Gwynedd was nominally in Chester's hands and it would have served his purposes to have all of this as seen to be successfully under his authority. However, all of this land remained disputed for the next two hundred years. Norman control over Welsh land was "tenous at best," according to historian Professor John Davies. Davies wrote that Chester claimed all of north Wales to the Clwyd river, with everything west of the Clwyd intended for his brother Robert "of Rhuddlan". The traditional boundry between Gwynedd and Chester was at the Dee river, with Tegeingle (Flintshire), Harwarden, Caergwle, and Maelor as the frontier commotes between the two. It is also important to remember that in the 11th century all of this region and parts of Chester and other English lands were ruled by the Welsh king Gruffydd ap Llywelyn. So Norman control here remained unsettled until the 13th century Edwardian conquest.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk England

Gozitancrabz was a sock puppet of Iamandrewrice and I am not sure of their origin. The admin who reported the sockpuppetry was Bencherlite and I have brought his attention to Talk:England to see if he concurs. Interestingly there has been silence since I raised the suspicion which is what happened on Wales the minute Gozitancrabz was reported. --Snowded (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

hi and thanks.

Hello - thanks for reply. sorry about lack of citations, etc. To be honest, this is my second wikipedia entry and I haven't really got a clue what I'm doing. It's nice to see a page on my old home town, though. I'm not sure whether I can get what you need. There's a few references to club 4 on old rave sites, etc, but nothing substantial. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to reply. I've realised in future I should perhaps press the 'talk' button on wikipedia to let whoever has done the page know what I'm adding.. Regards, Allan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allanclare 1972 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It is a pity that no source exist that could be used to verify the information. May be you could encourage the club to put up their own webpage, or get the local council website to use it as an example of entertainment venues in the place? Then you could include the information citing them. Just an idea.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandbach School

Hi I've just restructured the International_Links section i was wondering if you could take a look over it to see what you think. (ARBAY (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

Sorry I've been otherwise occupied for the past couple of days. I'll take a look shortly and let you know. Best wishes.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've now taken a look. You've done some good work there, and I hope these comments will help you improve it more.

1. To begin with, some might see the subsections as being too small (a single paragraph under a sub-heading tends to get criticized by quite a few editors, especially if an article is trying to get Good Article status or Featured Article status, which I think we all need to try to achieve for the articles we edit anyway. I can totally understand why you did this, since the subsections deal with separate international school links, and separating them out makes good sense in terms of helping to structure the information. But in this case, if there isn't much that could be done about expanding the subsections, it will be seen as making the text a bit too short and choppy. I think having the subsections is a good way of writing the material to keep your thoughts focused on the relevant information, but when that is done, it may best to remove them and run the information together so that it flows a bit more.
2. The format of the references could be improved a bit, though to know how to do it or that it should be done means having a bit of knowledge that sometimes can be difficult to find and tricky to get right. If you look at Template:Cite web, you will see some templates described that can help you do this if you are including a website as a reference. I've done the "translation" to get them used for the first few references in the article, and the rest that are websites could be done similarly. If you could try to do some of the rest yourself, I am sure you would quickly get the hang of it. One tricky thing which I usually have to look up myself is the format of the date on which you accessed the information on the website (the "accessdate=" bit in the template) because it is done in a USA style I'm unfamiliar with (year-month-day).
3. A few of the references you added (and may be some that were already there) are to actual BLOGs. These aren't often viewed as being reliable sources on wikipedia, and so, again, if the article was to go forward for Good Article or Featured Article status, they could be problematic. If you can't find other, equally good, sources, you could try simply deleting them, but this may mean some of the text would become more obviously unverified. (On the view that blogs are not reliable sources, the information wouldn't have been verified to begin with!) The best solution may be to try your best to find other, more reliable sources, to verify the information if some sort of citation is definitely required at the points where the blogs are used. Why not try to see if you can find some other sources?

I hope the above comments help. I think you are makiing a good start here, and I encourage you to continue. Best wishes.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou i will try to do as you asked but probably will be in a couple of weeks(exams)also i was going to try to find out more information about the links and therefore expand each school with in the international links section the schools website is undergoing redevelopment and as such information is being added about the links --ARBAY (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. You are right in your view that your exams should take a greater priority than wikipedia, since they will have a greater effect upon your future. I would concentrate on them, and not worry too much about the article just now. I'll keep a watch on it for you so that you can return to it when you have more time. In the meantime, I'll probably convert some more references in it, and make sure the subsections are left as they are, in anticipation of you being able to expand them more. I hope you do well in your exams.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello I've sorted references and removed the Blog references okay hope you become an admin !!! (ARBAY (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

Hello again please tell me if im pestering , but could you take a look over Sandbach School I've added some images on the page and some of commons I'm not sure where to put them I was hoping that you could help. (ARBAY (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC))

Hi again. No, you aren't pestering at all. Thanks for the message. I'll try to take a look, but it may have to wait for a day or so, as I'm a bit busy both on here and in real life. I'll try to do it before Sunday, and I'm hoping that would be not too slow for you. Is that all right?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If I may jump in, as one of DDStretch's talk page stalkers, and someone who used to drive past the school every day, and someone who had friends who attended the old Sandbach Grammar (I went to Crewe Grammar myself). The article is clearly safe from AfD now, but that International Links section (should be International links according to the Manual of Style) has too many very short sections. Think about combining them into a couple of paragraphs. It's important as well that statements like this one: "Sandbach School also has an international reputation for Drama, recently touring to Hong Kong, New Zealand and Brazil. The school's production of 'Oh What A Lovely War' is set to feature at the Edinburgh Fringe 2008." Sounds very impressive, but who is that says Sandbach has an international reputation for drama? Where's the evidence that the production is going to appear at the Edinburgh Fringe?

I'm sure that DDStretch will add to this in due course, but hopefully this will give you a few things to work on in the meantime. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I Will try to Find evidence it is certainly true, i am actully a little busy at the moment with the Save Sandbach Community Primary school campaign, to but have time to do this I was planning on incresing the size of each of the Internaional links schools this has not been possible however, and currently most if not all Cheshire school websites seem to be off line thank you very much for taking an interest. Malleus Fatuorum do you have a good knowledge of where to put images or is there a style for it , ive uploaded them to the commons but am not sure where to put them within the article ARBAY (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey DDStretch,

Good to see you going for an RfA - good luck!

We must speak more often!

Thanks,

BlueGoblin^7even 10:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm waiting for the onslaught of additional optional questions now.  DDStretch  (talk)

RfA note

Hiya. Just a note but I fixed the end time on your RfA [4] for you. Good luck - I'm sure it wont be needed! Pedro :  Chat  10:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and thanks for the thanks! I'm all agog.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Best of luck for your RFA -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 10:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. If it goes either way, I'm still going to be editing away on here.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot approved: dabbing help needed

Hi there. Fritz bot has been approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot for filling in a possible 1.8 million articles on settlements across the world. Now dabbing needs to be done for links which aren't sorted as the bot will bypass any blue links. and I need as many people as possible to help me with Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places to prepare for the bot. If you could tackle a page or two everything counts as it will be hard to do it alone. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see what I could do.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your answer...

to question 5a on your RFA is absolutely sublime. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a whole swathe of answers to that question, many based on my knowledge of some work on creativity which looked at how to measure it, and how it could be "kick started" ("How many uses for a brick can you think of?" was a question that was used in one such study on English schoolchildren by a certain Liam Hudson that gained some fame in the 1970s, I recall, in a bood called "Contrary Imaginations".) I was very hesitant at using it, as I wasn't clear at all just what the question was wanting. I chose a quite "mild" analogy in the end. I was going to also add a table that illustrated the differences as a more "in your own words" type answer, but it became moot, I think. The last three (so far) I have to answer, or four if you include the double AGF II challenge are quite intriguing, and I'm having to rein in my analyses and critical thinking to try to ensure I answer them. The last one, and the AGF II challenge are ones I could write perhaps long essays about - particularly the one about how to "manage" disputes: preventative versus reactive, behavioural versus cognitive, and so on. I'm knackered now, and have some unexpected Real life events, and so I'll address some more of the questions tomorrow. Hmmmm..... my definition of incivility, does it mean my personal one now, the one I had before, the one I must have as an admin, and are any of these different from each other at all? etc etc, and what about the borderline issues where editor's egos get entangled up with the arguments they advance so that a challenge to their arguments gets perceived as a challenge to their person (Just like in Tudor England, where Henry VIII is supposed to have said words to the effect of "I am the state, and the state is me."), and which, from other reports of unknown reliability and validity, seems to be becoming taken as acceptable in some quarters of wikipedia? All of these questions are capable of lengthy consideration in their own right, and one must try to see where to draw the line and answer the damn things.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the best comments I've read on the nature of incivility and the label of incivility came from you, in a now deleted RfC that you'll be able to read in short order. They were complete, concise, and utterly convincing. It was only a matter of hours before the RfC was shut down completely. It's how you ended up on my Rfa-radar...:-) I said this before, I again don't mean to get to gushy, but your contributions to this project are priceless and I'm glad you'll have the freedom to do what I can do here. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I consider it more than a little unfair that I'm not even allowed to see my own RfC. But then, I'm old enough to know that life isn't fair. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking me to undelete it? I deleted it, so I suppose...nah, thinking better of it...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I was just feeling that it was a litle unfair that you big boys could see what the bullies said about me, but I couldn't. Never mind, I'll get over it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, when the admin tools are debundled, I'll expect you to be first in line to request "view deleted pages" since you won't do RfA#3...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A pity I can't have a copy of what I wrote, then. Oh well, not to worry. I see I have one oppose now, with two main points (one from GwynandGhmyrtle and the other from Epbr123). It is interesting that they both argue that I might be too stringent in my standards with new editors, and yet neither of the examples they give which are supposed to illustrate this involve inexperienced editors, which can be seen if one looks at the relevant logs and talk pages. So, their point is weak because it is an extrapolation from actual behaviour to assumed behaviour under different conditions. Of course, if I pointed this out, it could be seen as yet another illustration of the "only the perfect will do" type of criticism, which tells me that the best solution is to remain silent on the RfA on that matter. (A counter example can be seen just up this talk page, concerning Sandbach School, where I've tried to help an inexperienced editor very recently.) It also makes me wonder whether the point was actually ultimately a fair one to make if it discourages a response (not saying it wasn't, just floating a possibility that may be accepted or rejected on further consideration.) I'm not sure I want to answer any more of these "optional questions".  DDStretch  (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral on RFA

Hi there, I wanted to let you know that my neutral !vote on your RFA is in no way a reflection of how I perceive you here on Wikipedia: we've crossed paths I think on a few geographical articles in the Wirral/Merseyside area where we have worked together to combat vandalism and acted in concert on several issues which have arisen in the past over content. We have no history of dispute and I don't think we've actually ever disagreed on anything. So, I want to assure you my !vote is not about you but about the RFA itself, naturally, and that whatever the outcome I still will hold you in the greatest of respect as a fellow contributor. I do wish you luck, and as I say in my !vote explanation I'm open to being convinced. It's just the one sticking point about "quality of interaction and ability to work with others" (from WP:GRFA) which is causing a problem. If you've got a list of examples by all means I'm open to, and would in fact welcome, being proven wrong! Coldmachine^Talk 08:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Of course, I understand and accept why you may feel the need for additional information. Just as I think it is important for us to try our best to reach decisions about content on wikipedia for the right reasons, naturally, as part of that, it is also important to reach decisions about an RFA candidate for the right reasons as well. Thanks for asking me for clarification. I am happy to do this, and will try to assemble a list for you shortly. My reason for saying "try" is not that I think there is a shortage which means it will be difficult to locate them, but because I still have other questions to answer, and I must allocate time to answer you in with answering the other questions. However, here is a preliminary list which I will gradually expand upon if you want to see more. If the material I've added isn't exactly what you are looking for, please feel free to get back to me saying where I've gone wrong in my interpretation. I've assumed that quality of working together can include healthy disagreements which are concerned with working together to reach a solution that would be advantageous for wikipedia in terms of improving the quality of articles on wikipedia and the confidence with which one can be assured of this. It isn't in any strongly particular order.

1. Various contributions after it went "live" to Template talk:Infobox UK place, and joint working whilst it was being written, which can be found in Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 1, as well as the other archives, but in particular in Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 1#The "parish_status" and "parish" fields, where I worked with a number of editors, some of whom have cited this template work in their own RfAs.
2. Template talk:Infobox England and Wales civil parish (including more work yet to be done.)
3. Denshaw, Talk:Denshaw and User talk:Ddstretch#Denshaw
4. Navenby, Talk:Navenby, User talk:Ddstretch#Navenby, and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Navenby
5. The King's School, Chester and Talk:The King's School, Chester, where I've tried to get edit-warring to end by being understanding and suggesting means of achieving consensus.
6. Diocese of Chester and Talk:Diocese of Chester
7. Talk:Kingdom of Gwynedd
8. Sandbach School and User talk:Ddstretch#Sandbach School (working with and advising a new user, User:ARBAY),
9. Widnes and its talk page and also User talk:Ddstretch#hi and thanks.
10. A number of smaller-scale instances of working together on various matters in WT:UKGEO and its archives.

I hope that may be what you were looking for. I'd be interested in your feedback, and thanks for allowing me to clarify this matter.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In re: Your RFA and the above comments

Hi. You had an oppose !vote moved to Neutral today on your RFA. In the process, the formatting somehow broke Tangobot's RFA count. I attempted to reformat the comments so that the bot could parse them (and check for duplicates, etc.), and I ended up messing with your comment under neutral. I think I have it fixed, but please let me know if I screwed anything up; my only intent was correcting the formatting, and I'm reasonably sure I ended up doing that (after 5 edits or so). Thanks, and good luck; UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, and not to worry - mistakes can be done by any of us from time to time, and no harm has been done, which makes it even less of an issue. Thanks for sorting out the problem, and for letting me know. Thanks also for the wishes of good luck.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

..the formatting somehow broke Tangobot's RFA count.. Sorry sorry sorry.. And good luck from me (belatedly, and hoping no offence taken at my comments). Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, and certainly no hard feelings: we all may well benefit from being reminded from time to time that we may need to take special care about some of our actions, and I couldn't therefore criticize you for doing so, but really should thank you. Anyway, the main issue that prompted the exchange seems to have resulted in us reaching a consensus of how to best to handle the Welsh names of English towns and cities, etc, and I think that's a success for wikipedia in the end which is what matters, and we contributed to that success.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And it also prompted me to create a new article to publish the information via another (probably more helpful) route...! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA Question

Hello - Just wanted to drop a line to say that I was very impressed by your answer to my optional question at your RfA. As I noted in my support vote, it has been (by far!) the best answer that I've seen from any candidate that I have thus far posed it to. I'm very interested to read your complete answer sometime, if you'd like to elaborate on some of the questions that you posed in your RfA answer. Best of luck! --InDeBiz1 Review me! | Talk to me! 17:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'd like to expand on them at some point. I've got a few things I need to do just now, but I could get back to you in a few days or so if that is all right.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, you are now an administrator

I'm happy to inform you that, due to your successful request for adminship, you have now been promoted to an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or stop by the administrators' noticeboard. Congrats! Andre (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations... Let me be the first to wish you. Mr. Admin -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 10:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Coldmachine^Talk 10:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, and best of luck! xenocidic (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well done. If you need any help please hit me up. Also, try out the tool box at the new admin school. Pedro :  Chat  11:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to all of you who have commented here. I was actually out, shopping for some gardening things, and so I missed the final moments of the RfA. I'll probably send out the individual thanks that seems customary over the next day or so, and so, once again, thanks for the congratulations.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made some changes to your Userpage. Hope you dont mind -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My congratulations, too. Well deserved. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And you had doubts. Heh. That was one of the smoothest running RFAs I've seen in a while, a testament to a you as a top quality editor. Honored to have played a small part in pushing you over the hump. Don't go all crazy now deleting things :-) If you have any questions 'bout any of the new tabs on your browser, my talkpage is always open - there are no stupid questions (I'll make no promises here about my potential for giving stupid answers, however...) Congratulations again, back to work! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not surprised at how smoothly your RFA went. I trust that you will do a great job. You can always ask me any questions you might have too. bibliomaniac15 16:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC) PS: There are no stupid questions (save a few RFA questions), only inquisitive idiots.

Congratulations! You can relax now, without that Keeper76 hounding you every 15 seconds asking if you'd like to be an admin. BTW, I've got a black list of a couple of hundred editors I'd like to see blocked. Shall I email it to you? :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hearty congrats! Only just discovered your 'elevation' - and very well deserved it is too. Snowy 1973 (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for all the best wishes and congratulations. I now have to ponder the possible use of and dissemination of the RFA Thanks SPAM.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What?

Intentions...ok. I still don't understand what that has to do with my original statement. Beam 18:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The word under question is "lie". A lie is an untruth that the person who uttered it intended to be made knowing that it was not true, as a means of deception. It is the intention to deceive that marks off a lie from a simple untruth. Because an allegation of a lie contains within it an assessment of the intentions of a person who uttered it (that they wanted to say an untruth that they knew was an untruth), it is almost always unsupported and hardly ever verifiable, because of highly difficult problems of detecting and identifying intentions in people. This is especially the case involving communications over the Internet, where the additional cues of body language, intonation and so on, even if of little help, cannot be used to inform us about possible mental states (e.g. intentions) of another. As such, it would come under the various headings of incivility, and thus one could be vulnerable to challenges of being uncivil if one accused another of lying. Does that make it more clear?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If I may add to that, my initial comment about emotion arose out of the punctuation used. There does seem, to me at least, to be a significant difference in emotional overtone between "What a lie" and "What a lie!". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles newsletter

Delivered manually because the bot dislikes your ridiculously long talk page. ;-) 01:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello there

Could I get your thoughts on this, at Talk:Leeds? I've started a thread there, but, if you remember, we had this issue before on the Chester article, where a user mis-understood the issue a little. I hope all is well, --Jza84 |  Talk  11:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin?

Hi, I was glancing over your userpage and I noticed a slight contradiction. You have the admin symbol in the top-right of your userpage, but in the text you say that you are not yet an admin.  ?? TheMoridian 13:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks for pointing that out. I became an admin within the last two weeks, and so there are still a few things in need of updating. Thanks for pointing that out.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. TheMoridian 11:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

WHAT!?!?! I can't believe I missed that! I had absolutely no idea! My sincere congratulations!... you'll probably feel as empty as I did when you see the rather bleak features you have ended up with! Anyway, again, well done, and I'm just sorry I missed this. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm very good thanks. I've been very busy in real life catching up on a few things I haven't been able to for quite some time, hence the short break earlier in the month. I'm not quite done doing what I'm doing, so I might be away next week too, depending on a few factors.

I always dread leaving WP alone for any longer than 48 hours as experience tells me there will be a disaster somewhere, however I've come back to a healthy and prosperous WP, and I'm particularly pleased with your adminship, and the recent GA-passing of an article I helped write in the form of Milnrow.

I'm pleased you're also an admin as I know the tools will be useful to you. Certainly the use of deleting pages has been worth it (to aid with non-controvertial moves), and also the occational ip block. Other than that, there isn't really much to shout about when it comes to adminship, IMO. As ever, the fun is in writing great articles and producing worthy educational content.

Regarding the parishes issue, I know that has been something on your mind for quite some time. Certainly there is a long way to go in terms of improving how we organise that kind of material, and wider WP:UKGEO content. WP:UKCITIES was always intended to solve that issue, but there are still many areas unassessed, like civil parishes. If I can be of assistance, do please give me a nudge, and I'll help where I can. I think the main Civil parish article is in need of some TLC. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge tag

How come you removed it? --fone4me 11:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. But merging those articles would actually help us solve the current situation easier. --fone4me 11:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

UK mediation

I'll hold back! A few too many e/c's in there! I'm done for now. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

8-) I'm done for now as well (long day ahead tomorrow, and so I need to sleep.) I'm glad you thought the table useful to complete. I think there comes a point when one has to return to see what the sources we'll have to use say, which is why I made the "multi-term" suggested solution in the first place.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think it's the right way forwards. Once the table has filled-out a little, I would like to propose that the involved parties each make a statement which includes their conclusions about the source material, that way I think we can gauge people's feelings about certain terms, why they find them unreliable etc... that is, unless you had another idea?

I'm hoping the team can agree on something which is ambiguous, but equally, reflects real-world practice and doesn't compromise the image of Wikipedia. A challenge if ever there was! :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well this is unfortunate. The process is making a turn for the worse by a lack of committment to WP:V as well as beginning to focus back on "agendas", "politics" and "people" rather than content. I've left a breif note on the mediation page addressed to MickMackMee asking him that if he doesn't wish to add sources then that's fine, but allow others the space to do so.

On a similar note, I'm involved with a couple of debates at Talk:Association of British Counties and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Yorkshire#Controvertial. These may or maynot be of interest to you. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

good faith

Sorry if my edit was wrong that you have reversed, I am not too clever in that area. Dmcm2008 (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I've sent you a message about it on your talk page.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Again sorry I understand what you said and I will be more careful Dmcm2008 (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandbach

Hi sorry to bother you But I have just expanded Sandbach, I was wondering if you could take a look , it looks to me like it might need reordering and i though you were best for the job thankyou ARBAY (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Are you being facetious? if not, you would have relayed the same message to Jza and MRSC as my words were no more stern than theres. If you would like evidence for any of the claims made on the talk, then I will only be too glad to provide. You also failed to provide diffs in your message to me, in regards to which words you're claiming are offesive, perhaps WP:Assume good faith and respect that people from different places have a different manner of speech.

The two users constantly harass and follow me to articles making disruptive edits in violation of numerous Wikipedia guidelines (WP:HARASS is just one). For example the removal of third party references from articles which don't suit their POV, without entering an edit summary (considered by Wikipedia guidelines as bad faith and a violation of WP:BLANK). The violation of WP:NEO by adding derogatory neologisms to the articles of organisations who they do not personally agree with, despite being made aware of the policy, despite not having any reference to the said organisation being described with said neologislm and despite the community majority constantly removing the derogatory term. The same "tag team" practise can be shown to be used against numerous other editors who edit articles on British culture and trad counties, not just against me. Again, if you would like evidence just ask.

It would seem however, looking at the messages on your talkpage above, especially the lovely intertude under "UK mediation" section, that Jza messaged you (somebody he seems very familiar with) in violation of WP:CANVAS. Specifically the section on Wikipedia:CANVAS#Campaigning may interest you. If you're going to be an admin, may I suggest you please make yourself familiar with the policies and guidelines I have referenced in this message. Rather than accusing me, a user who is being cyberstalked, of "personal attacks". Systematic bias is not acceptable, you're here to make sure that our policies are upheld not to chip in for the sake of a friend. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Now, aren't you glad you became an administrator Ddstretch? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Yorksirian indefinitely unless and until he gives an undertaking to stop personal attacks and apologizes for them.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblock denied. I want to see the community or arbcom handle this one. Viridae^Talk 08:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Has the assumptions of bad faith/incivility/personal attacks gone to multiple areas, or have they just been limited to the area Sam Blacketer has referred to in his conditional unblock offer? Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, they are confined to areas that were mentioned in the conditional unblock offer (including the comment on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 26 (diff here), which, together with what I saw in his editing history, alerted me to the ongoing nature of all this. In fact, as far as I can see, Yorkshirian's edits in other unrelated areas show that he is capable of writing good material.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay - this case probably could've been considered by the community before going to ArbCom now I think of it. That said, I do wish for the Committee to consider some other remedies (outside of the traditional) for dealing with persistent incivility - hopefully this opportunity can be used to get more ideas. Anyway, thank you for your reply. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Trim

Please do some serious trimming here. It is excessively long for RFAR and is more of evidence presentation. Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that Yorkshirian has made a number of unfounded allegations about myself in his statement, I needed the space in order to adequately present them. I will endeavour to do that tomorrow, as I need to sleep now.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Your undiscussed changes to University of Chester

I have reverted your changes to the referencing style in University of Chester. It was an undiscussed change that altered the style of all the references for no apparent good or compelling reason. If you think the referencing style you changed them to should be used instead of the quite common used in all areas of Wikipedia, please discuss them on the article's talk page before reinstating them. Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood what actually happened. The user before me, Gaius Cornelius, changed the referencing system without consultation and I changed it back. This perfectly follows Wikipedia's guidelines: it says in Wikipedia:REF#Ref tags and punctuation (which I linked to my edit summary), 'if an article has evolved using predominantly one style of ref tag placement, the whole article should conform to that style unless there is a consensus to change it'. - Green Tentacle (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. My apologies. I must say, however, that I find that style highly ugly in comparison with the punctuation before the footnote style (which I also dislike, but have come to live with), and I suspect it will cause some raised eyebrows if the article is put forward for FA status. I was going to revert it back for you, but I see you've done it for me. Once again, my apologies. It was brought about by noticing an unusual and (as I said) rather ugly formatting, from my point of view.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I personally prefer the footnote before the punctuation style because the footnote invariably is linked to that sentence and it therefore seems logical that it should be 'part' of it and it also makes more sense on occasions where footnotes are used mid-sentence. Also, it's what I used to and I think it looks pretty! - Green Tentacle (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, no harm then. There's no accounting for taste (I'm used to "Harvard" referencing, though I know it as APA style.)  DDStretch  (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes before the punctuation jarred with me as well; I've become quite accustomed to the more usual wikipedia style of punctuation then footnote. But so far as the MoS is concerned, it just has to be consistent throughout the article. I'm sure it would raise eyebrows at FAC, but it can be quite legitimately defended if necessary. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheshire project experience with Merseyside articles?

Hi Ddstretch; how're things post-mop these days? I hope it's going well! I have a small favour to ask: we have an editor who regularly provides unsourced content to Merseyside area articles; most recently on Liverpool Urban Area. There's been ongoing content disputes between this editor and several others who have grown exsasperated with trying to educate on WP:V and the other content policies. I hasten to add that I'm neutral on the matter, having only poked my head in occasionally when asked for a third opinion or when I've seen a call for consensus building. Personally I think WP:AGF prevails and there's no sysop-related intervention required as far as I'm concerned; BUT you have a good deal of experience with WikiProject Cheshire and I wondered if I could lean on that and ask if you wouldn't mind having a go at trying to educate User:Dmcm2008 on best practice since this is a similar sort of area. User:Jza84 has suggested WP:ADOPT and I'm inclined to agree, but I wondered if one last try from an expert might be productive. Coldmachine^Talk 22:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Things are going hectically at the moment. Sorry for the delay in replying, but I have been really busy today on wikipedia, and will remain busy both on and off wikipedia for the next few days. I will try to help out, though my input may be limited for the rest of this week. At the end of July, I will be away and out of internet access for the best part of a month, and so there will be times prior to that when various commitments mean I will be away. I have had some small interactions with this user, as I recall, some time ago, and I'll try to review it as a possible means of re-engaging him. I hope that helps.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My turn to apologise for the delayed reply! Absolutely, that sounds great, basically whatever time/energy/guidance you could offer would be much appreciated. I impose only because it's on related content issues to those I'm sure you've dealt with time and time again during your experience with the Cheshire project. At the moment we have some valuable contributors who are being put off making edits because they're getting frustrated with trying to impart some understanding to a new editor. So, any tips/help you can offer that individual would be great! Coldmachine^Talk 22:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fone4My

I am getting very confuse by this user. Thatcher did a check user which found: "Confirmed that WalkingTelephone (talk · contribs) and Fonez4Yw (talk · contribs) are the same person, Likely they are Fone4My." Also that "Confirmed that MagdelenaDiArco (talk · contribs) and IrzamAhmad (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets of Fone4My" . However Fone4My is actively (and aggressively) editing again and asserting he is not a sockpuppet. Shouldn't he be under some form of ban? I asked Thatcher and he said: As a checkuser it is my general policy to present the results of the technical analysis and leave the decisions about blocks or bans to other admins. You can request attention from any other administrator to review the situation, such as by posting at WP:ANI or by contacting any admin you have worked with before. Thatcher 13:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Now I admit I am getting very confused with lots of similar sounding names but there is something wrong here. Also when I asked Phone4My is he had every edited before he specifically stated only minor edits as an IP. --Snowded (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I am also getting confused, and, I must admit, a bit irritated by all of this (see Talk:Kilmarnock and Talk:Scotland for some messages by me about various possibly other socks.) I think the similar-sounding names are causing problems, and wonder why on earth such similar names were ever chosen. Let me take a look at it all, have a think, and I'll let you know what might be the best way forward. I'll try to do it by this evening. Is that all right?  DDStretch  (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Look mate (neutral but complementary term), you are one of the good guys here so take as long as you need! I am giving up on getting a paper out today and am going to bed here in KL with aggravated migraine as a result of being an editor on any UK page or possible 7 hours adrift and with jet lag! The disruption is I think preventing a compromise and the sock problem is major. Appreciate you taking it up (liked your latest edit as well) --Snowded (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I too was going to ask you (as the closing/blocking admin of the Jack forbes case) to take another looks at the Fone4My case. Please also note that evidence for the case (yes, even checkuser results!) have bee posted on Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jack_Forbes instead of the actual case page! I think it is vital that you take a look as both cases are inextricably linked. Thanks! --Cameron* 16:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: You may also wish to inform User:Jehochman as he closed the case originally. I approved of the closure at the time but he may wish to change the outcome given any new evidence. I leave informing him up to you. I wouldn't want to seem meddlesome! = ) Thanks again!--Cameron* 16:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I have now reviewed the situation and taken action. See User talk:Fone4My#Sockpuppetry (second section) for details, and a notification to User:Jehochman at User talk:Jehochman#Sockpuppetry of Fone4My. You may be also interested that I have also taken action against User:Jack forbes and his sockpuppets, as well as some others which seem remarkably similar (see User talk:WalkingTelephone, which I acted on earlier) which can be viewed on their relevant talk pages. I will continue to monitor the situation and take more action if new results arise and can be confimed. I hope, though, that this is the end of the matter.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing such a good job (very thorough)! We should have closure now. It has all been rather ghastly. I was (and still am) considering taking a short wiki-break due to all the kerfuffle. Thanks again. Regards, --Cameron* 17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My thanks too and I know how Cameron feels (wiki-break) but I think that would be too surrender the articles to people like this. It is noticeable how every major driver for the removal of country here and on Wales in the last few months has been a sock puppet. Its prevented a rational debate between those who have legitimate arguments on either side so getting rid of the latest is excellent. --Snowded (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sophie Bextor

Re Sophie Bextor (talk · contribs), what do you think - a meatpuppet or sockpuppet perhaps? I'm finding it very testing to assume good faith entirely here. Way too much silliness going on with Scotland ATM. There seems to be an army of socks at the moment. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that editor is bound up with the users I blocked (details on Talk:Kilmarnock.) I think the "excuse in advance" by claiming to be a relative seems doubtful, only barely credible, perhaps. However, I was waiting a little before I decided for sure. I'm still trying to get to the bottom of User:Fone4My (see User talk:Fone4My), who has been linked to the user involved with Kilmarnock. I think there needs to be strong action taken to stop all this nonsense as it is becoming impossible.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone got a checkuser involved to your knowledge? I'm confident we'd find a long-term, established user behind the socking. Although there has been some silly contributions, asserting innocence and lack of understanding with WP, some of the ips linked with these sockpuppets clearly have indepth knowledge of inner WP. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there has been. But we would have to try to identify the long-term editor, as I understood that the checkuser people didn't like, and wouldn't agree to, going on something that could be seen as a "fishing expedition". The best we could do is to try to confirm the link between this editor and User talk:WalkingTelephone and/or this User talk:Martinnutini person, as the ip address used seems to be one used by many different editors.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the puppetmaster has set up multiple accounts already. Yes we can get tough and start blocking on sight (which may lead to an admin making a bad call, and block a genuine newcomer), but I think as we block one, another is ready and waiting per WP:EVADE. I see WP:RANGE being considered in the not too distant future. I'll monitor the situation with Sophie Bextor. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you. We are in a Hydra situation.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree to that block - even if I didn't policy prevails here anyway. I've left a note on their talk page. I suggest something between WP:BRAIN and WP:RBI. No point letting this individual take anymore of our time away from writing articles IMO. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello there! Our mutual friend has returned again as 78.150.164.93 (talk · contribs) and 89.240.247.117 (talk · contribs) in the last 12 hours alone. I blocked the former. What do you think about this individual? There's a fundamental lack of respect for the blocks and using talk pages first which is annoying to say the least. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

--Sorry you're at least one step ahead of me! --Jza84 |  Talk  14:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I agree that the problem has returned. I blocked 89.240.247.117 whilst you were reverting the changes, because I could see that ongoing disruptive editing was being carried out (so I thought it better to block first, and fix later, but you fixed it at the same time.) I've imposed a rather stringent 1 year anonblock and posted a message asking editors to log in to edit from that IP address, or, if they haven't got a registered name, they have to email wikipedia to obtain one. I'll be happy to unblock if we can get a different yet as effective solution to this. I think we could semi-protect Scotland, but I'm unsure. What do you think? A range block could be considered, but would it disadvantage too many others?  DDStretch  (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly yes. I've never perfomed a range block, but I suspect this disruption is (currently) pretty minor in the scheme of things - so much so that more experienced admins in this field might frown upon such a move; I'll have to take a look at the guidelines. I think WP:RBI applies here - I don't think we need to encourage this user by extensive dialogue- something which has already failed. Might be worth semi-protecting the East Ayrshire page if this person returns though. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  14:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There's another Scotland23 (talk · contribs). I think we require a sockpuppet expert now. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I agree. What shall we do immediately? I see you've put sockpuppet notices on some accounts, but do we need to ask for some checkuser chacks to be carried out at all?  DDStretch  (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

unblock review

I think this was a poor idea. This is moot now, as another admin has reviewed the unblock, but I did want to bring it to your attention. Unblock reviews are made to preserve a sense of fairness and yours strongly made it look like you had a vendetta. Your block was fine: in the future, I hope you'll trust your instincts enough to understand that it is a good thing to be open to review. Mangojuice^talk 05:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I will bear it in mind. However, I did discuss the matter with other administrators, including the block reviewer who was in agreement with me (as were all who I discussed this with) and my behaviour was similar to many actions taken in other cases. However, I can see that it would have been better to wait for the final reviewing admin to respond first, and so thank you for drawing this to my attention.  DDStretch  (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sorry to trouble you, but

Hello there! No problem at all, I shared your concerns through-and-through. I left MMM a message with this diff. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hang in there at the Mediation Cabal, Ddstrech; you've done nothing wrong. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Don;t let the bastards grind you down --Snowded (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support!!! Please don't give way to bullies like MickMacnee. Just look at his talk page and you will see what an obnoxious person he has been in the past. Stand up to him. Your reply was excellent!!! -- Maelor  12:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for (all) your comments. I won't be returning to the mediation discussion, as I think it does not have a positive benefit any more, though I will add the table myself, unless someone else does it first, to the Subdivisions of the United Kingdom article. I think in cases like this, it becomes clear that a consensus driven by a "top down" approach is not easy to achieve, and so when the editors active on the individual article pages begin to move to a common position more in a spontaneous manner (a "bottom up" approach), then another attempt might become useful. I think some of the objections based on ill-educated people's idea of what "country" means were peculiar, especially when one looks at the table of reliable sources that we were building. I find it odd that this body of reliable sources seem to hardly feature at all in many people's views though I imagine that it could have been because it pointed to an overwhelming conclusion that was not in line with their pre-conceived ideas (hence the weak arguments about conforming to an inaccurate working definition of "country".) Although I am satisfied I sorted out the immediate problem of the sockpuppetting surrounding that entire dispute (not just the mediation discussions), I do think that the deeper issue of the master-sockpuppeteer remains open, though I do believe I gained some important insights into that matter, though I prefer to keep that to myself just now, as any evidence remains at present inconclusive  DDStretch  (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

England & Scotland use country. Wales may be headed towards using country. Who knows, perhaps Northern Ireland might decide to do the same. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wales: a Country

Hiya. Many thanks for your support against the bully boys. It took a lot of guts and a level head. I'm impressed, and hope to have learned from you. I've stayed away from the discussions for some time, following strong advice that was left for me by more experienced editors. Although I must say I've wanted to jump in many times. You mentioned in one of your posts that you had asked an independent administrator to have a look. Did you receive any response? Dai caregos (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I think you are probably aware that the process of an informal thord opinoion is now started. So, let's see what arises from that.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of presidents

I'm sorry if I appeared defensive on the talk page, and some of my comments weren't directed at you. I am far from pleased by the visual presentation myself, and I agree the legend needs to be somewhere else. I have to find the original file and rework it, though. All the best, and thanks for the feedback. --Leifern (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. If no one had a difference of opinion during a perfectly civil discussion, then it would be probably more difficult to find a way of improving the article that would be better than the differing individual opinions, and so I think there's no problem here. Thanks for the message, and best wishes for the work on the article.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Kirkcaldy article needs copy editing work

hello

i recently undertook a major revamp of the Kirkcaldy article. although my work has been praised by a couple of users. i wonder if you won't mind looking at Kirkcaldy to do some copy editing work, as i would like to put the article for a peer review for GA status, if you can. Kilnburn (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for the message. I'll be happy to take a look at the article, but I have real-life commitments that will mean I'm effectively not online from now until Sunday. Would that be still within the time-scale you were thinking of for someone to look at it? I'll be able to deal with it on Sunday, but if you want a quicker turnaround, you might like to see if someone else could respond more quickly (though I'll still look it over, as two people doing that may have its own advantages.) I hope that's all right with you.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

actually, there's no time limit for the work, but i'm going to take your advice and consult another user to look at the work as well. Kilnburn (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

right just to keep you up to date, the other user that i consulted has already done some work. i am going to made some changes in the article, before you come here tommorrow. Kilnburn (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshirian's page moves

Yorkshirian' Arbcom case is approaching its finish, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian/Proposed decision. His page move war has left Roman Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle, Diocese of Middlesbrough, and Diocese of Leeds without the proper edit histories. Could you use your powers to undelete the right versions and generally sort out this mess? Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice: I am aware of the RfA, being one of the people involved in it (I blocked him just before it got going, and attracted numerous personal attacks from him as a result). I wasn't aware of the other dioceses' problems, but just happened to have the Hexham and Newcastle one on my watchlist after adding a small fact to it some months ago. Having now looked at his editing history on this matter, there are probably a lot more of these that need sorting out, unless you've already done that? I'll take a look in a minute.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Should you really be messaging me after before? By the way, I have used the talk on another of the diocese article but he won't enter discussion and keeps insisting on placing within articles names which contradict the official ones on the diocese websites for examples, this; http://www.dioceseofleeds.org.uk/. I also messaged the user on his talkpage to no avail. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(To Mr Stephen) I've taken a look at the editing histories, and it appears that it is not Yorkshirian's doing that has destroyed the editing history of those articles, but the other editor. Given that I've tried to put a stop to it, and I don't know how to reinstate the articles so that the old editing histories are restored, I suspect some extra help from other administrators or even oversight is required to sort this mess out

(To Yorkshirian) If you persist in being disruptive on other articles, then I think it quite appropriate to message you about it. Particularly if you foul up a redirect, which you did with the Hexham and Newcastle diocese's talk page. The discussion needs to be put on the article's talk page, so that people other than the two involved in the edit-warring can comment.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverting an editors mistake, as per the website linked as evidence is "being disruptive"? Have you read our policies on WP:Assume good faith and WP:NPA? you should do, because claiming that making genuine edits as I did, are attempts at being "disruptive" clearly are not in following with them. I put discussion on one of the talkpages, like I told you, but the user did not engage. I think it was the Leeds one.- Yorkshirian (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for information I have reverted Diocese of Leeds to Roman Catholic Diocese of Leeds and Diocese of Middlesbrough to Roman Catholic Diocese of Middlesbrough as they were cut & paste moves by Yorkshirian to evade the move protection that I had added to these pages following a recent back and forward between the names. I did request in edit summary for this to be discussed on the talk page and agree a name. I have also added this to the note you left on his talk page. Though looking at the user's edits made today it looks like there are several other articles that may be in a similar state. Keith D (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

We were each writing messages about this on the other's talk page at the same time. I think a careful consideration of all the page moves needs to be carried out, but I'd like some better idea of whether there is some agreed convention about naming them, which is why I particularly invited comments on various noticeboards and project pages that I thought might have the best knowledge of any that might exist (for details, see Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle.) However, cut and paste moves would seem to be always in need of reversion to help preserve the editing histories, and then, if appropriate and after discussion, more appropriate means of page moving.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok. Given the Arbcom case is now closed, I've now reviewed and made all the Roman Catholic Dioceses and Archdioceses complient with the form "Roman Catholic Diocese of X" or "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of X", carrying out page moves as required. This was done because there seems to be widespread consensus in favour of that form of name. I've also made various reversions of the text that makes the lead sentence compliant with the name of the article. There may be other tweaks required, and a template may need looking at (Template:Roman Catholic dioceses in England and Wales, and also a search is needed for possible double redirects.) Although I've made the changes, it appears that an editor is unhappy with the apparent claimed consensus about the name, so we may not be "out of the woods" yet (see here).  DDStretch  (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work ddstretch. Yorkshirian is an excellent editor, who has made quite a number of great contributions. I say this as someone who disagrees with him over the issue. Roman Catholic diocese of X is in no way shape or form derogatory, and the standardisation is a long time in coming. Much appreciated. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I decided to try to sort it out for all of the articles dealing with England and Wales, to try to put a stop to it. Since he was asked to stop editing UK geography articles whilst the Arbcom case was in operation, he turned his special skills to the dioceses issue, in his own way. Compared with some of the problems in UK geographical articles, it was a small task to sort them out. I hope his year's break from wikipedia will improve his approach to matters.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Cornwall, etc, and Yorkshirian

Y also seems to have moved Kingdom of Cornwall to Kingdom of Dumnonia (24 June 08). An IP then cut-n-pasted the text back into Kingdom of Cornwall, likewise the talk, then edited the talk - so we now have a fork. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that there should now be a straight redirect from Kingdom of Dumnonia to Dumnonia, which contains the correct text - that at Kingdom of ... is now wholly wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but Kingdom of Dumnonia has the history that (correct me if I'm wrong) should belong to Kingdom of Cornwall. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for the messages about Cornwall/Dumnonia matters. I'm now confused and have no knowledge about these issues. If my own ignorance and uncertainty is shared by others, some disputes about the three mentioned articles may well result. If it does or if it really has, what I suggest is that a group of editors get together and attempt to come to some considered and reasoned position about all three articles: Kingdom of Cornwall, Kingdom of Dumnonia, and Dumnonia. Post messages to all talk pages, along with whatever project talk pages you can identify are most relevant, directing people to a centralised discussion about the issues. I leave it to you to suggest a suitable location for the discussion. If not, then some formal page rename or merger could be quickly proposed and settled. I just don't know enough to comment on the content here, though, and so, I don't really know how to proceed to reconcile any problems.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe at WP:Cornwall? Mr Stephen (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead anyway and redirected Kingdom of Dumnonia to Dumnonia, on the basis that it seemed a simple and quick solution to overcome what were clear errors of fact. I've also proposed that Dumnonia and Dumnonii be merged. So, we shall see... Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets and positive checkuser

Hi there again, sorry to bother you once more but I wondered if you could use your mop to wipe up this? A checkuser turned up positive for all listed accounts, plus an additional one at User:Kosova Kosova. Coldmachine^Talk 16:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I've reviewed the results of the checkuser, and taken the appropriate action (all indefinitely blocked).  DDStretch  (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate it especially since I know (from a cursory glance at your talk page!) how busy you are :) Coldmachine^Talk 17:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Diocese of vs Diocese of

The only thing that I can refer to was the (at least) supposed consensus here: Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, no. 51. It seems rather obvious which way more clearly represents the subject; Diocese of ... could, and occasionally does, refer to any number of different organisations (Anglican, Episcopal, Old Catholic, Polish Catholic, Roman Catholic, etcetera).--Lyricmac (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It is perhaps a bit moot now, as Yorkshirian (the editor who was changing the names to "Diocese of X") has just been banned for one year by Arbcom for editor conduct problems and attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground. I'll try to sort out the mess that has been left behind now. Once again, thanks for digging out the link, as it did help.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. As a consequence of editor conduct and attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground, Yorkshirian (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

List of places in Cheshire

Renata has been editing List of places in Cheshire and adding images. The images have been messing up the edit links for Firefox (and Safari) users and I have managed to correct it on this page by using a technique I learnt from Malleus Fatuorum. S/he has been adding images to other place lists (including Derbyshire, Lancashire and Leicestershire (and messing up the edit links there)). I do not think images are appropriate on these pages - the ones s/he has used tend to show "things" rather than "places" - and photos of places are not usually helpful. What do you think? If you agree with me, what should be done about it? Best wishes, Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I think something needs to be done about the article, but I'm not at all convinced that adding images is the best thing. The effort would be better spent in going through the list and sorting it out more, adding missing links, and so on. I looked at the editing history, and see that she has also changed the format at one point from a vertical list to a "paragraph type" list, which saves space, but which I think makes it more difficult to read. I think the question that needs some consideration is asking what the list is for, and whether there is therefore any other pieces of information about each place that could usefully be included (such as geographical coordinates). If there are, then recasting the lists in the form of a suitable table may be better. It would be a biggish task, but time spent adding images could usefully be redeployed by someone to convert the bare lists into tables if additional or extra information was identified. Are there other similar lists that we can learn from on this matter? I'll try to take a look myself. Best wishes.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And our mutual friend is...

... a 12 year old child! I've added this enlightening evidence to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (4th). :) --Jza84 |  Talk  00:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, a number of features about it all now seem to fall into some semblance of sense. The immediate question that springs to my mind (probably because I have a son just 8 months younger than him) is what happened to appropriate parental supervision of a child on the Internet if parents/guardians allowed all this disruption to happen? I think he needs to be dealt with in an understanding and positive way now, rather than a way which one might adopt to a vandal one knows to be a disruptive adult. Is there some way we could direct his enthusiasm to acceptable work? Probably difficult on wikipedia, but we probably could do with encouraging him to put all his effort and work into something more positive than that which he has done on here so far. Best to do it publically, with no email, as well.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Seen this? "Prize for Progress and Effort"... Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I'm not sure what we can easily do without knocking a few heads together over this. The edits to Scotland are still going on, from a variety of IP addresses, and I think taking this to the next level of actoon is now needed.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I feel you are not one of my biggest fans (do I have any?) but I would like to thank you (I know you have reservations) for agreeing to my unblock. I don't know what the ratio is of people throwing their second chances back in the face of the unblocking admin, but I can assure you, I won't be one of them. Thanks! Jack forbes (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message (I'll copy this reply to your talk page). There's no real necessity for you to apologise to me, because your future, changed behaviour will be sufficient recompense. All I will say is that we all make mistakes from time to time, and in most cases people deserve a second chance, as otherwise they can't demonstrate they have changed. So good luck with your future work on wikipedia, and remember to make it enjoyable for yourself.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Nimbley's actions today, and checkusering accounts

Ooops! Sorry, I had overlooked this message amongst a flurry of others I'd recieved! My apologies.

This news is most frustrating, and I think you're right to seek the next tier of managing these users either inline with our standards, or, if needbe, off Wikipedia outright. I think we need a widespread checkuser test on several accounts. Not just the suspected (and rather obvious) ips and socks of Nimbley, but also to ensure that the correlation between users like User:MinYinChao, User:Wikipéire and User:Malarious is purely co-incidental. I wonder if User:Rudget will be willing and able to advise here? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ive taken some more blocking action, but thunk the IP address may just be switched again. Any suggestions of what I can do here? I'm thinking that an investigation of the originating ISP and official communication from wikipedia to them may be on the horizon if it continues.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert, block, ignore. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandbach

I was wondering if you could take a look at Sandbach I think it is probably verging on C class thankyou ARBAY (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'll take a look at it shortly. I hope all is well with you.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 90 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral. All the best, Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar Category: General Barnstars

Thanks for restoring my userpage. Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Derbyshire list.

Hi Ddstretch. Thanks for fixing the problem.Ning-ning (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome!  DDStretch  (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Pendle witch trials

Thanks for your support at this FAC. I really am as nervous as a very nervous kitten over this one, I'll be glad when it's over. :-)

No problem. Reading it was a welcome change from recent wrangles. It is good.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one that assumed from the section header that this was going to be something in regards to RFA? (I really need to stop thinking like that). Great article, Malleus, not that I expected anything less than great. Keeper ǀ 76 21:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA is way off my radar screen now. I'm quite happy to accept that I'm too impatient and not diplomatic enough for the job. I'm perfectly happy bumbling around fixing up articles like this one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a personal attack

Apologies if you view some of my comments as a personal attack - not intended at all. There is room for all sorts of editors in Wikipedia, and my only comment is that, when it comes to the need or desirability of complying with guidelines and seeking to get articles to "GA" status, your edits and comments suggest that you are at one end of the spectrum. Personally, I tend to a greater degree of flexibility, and, although getting articles to "GA" is a laudable aim, it's not something that governs how I edit on a day-to-day basis. It obviously matters a great deal to you (which is why I referred to "pedantry", which is just my occasional perception), but not so much to me. So, we are different but I'm sure (in fact, I know) that we share many of the same aims and I'm quite sure (and, again know) that we can (and do) work together in relative harmony. But, apologies, as what I viewed as banter was certainly not meant as an "attack" in any way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
PS - I'll get back to the discussions in question later this evening. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello again

Just started the expansion of another Article was wondering if you'd take a look over it I'm guessing (Hopeing) its now Start class Thanks ARBAY TALKies

Thanks for the message. I've made some additions and copy edited it a bit. I think it now firmly a Start Class article, and so I've adjusted the assessments accordingly. I corrected what I think is an error: Wheelock still has its own ecclesiastical parish, and it has merely joined in with Sandbach ecclesiastical parish in the group you mentioned in the article. The Diocese of Chester article has a table which lists Wheelock as being an (ecclesiastical) parish, and I added the table taking data from the diocese's website. I think it is reading better after the changes you have begun there. Keep up the good work.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Im not sure weather to remove the 'It was named after the River Wheelock' sentece as it could be but the source that ihave used says 'The word come from the word Chevel-og meaning winding, twisting, turning and the conclusions seem to be the river with its many twists and turns until they reach the central body of the river outside the village' do you think thathis should be clarified. Also this suggests it could similar ARBAY TALKies

The source I have (reckoned to be authoritative): (Dodgson, J. McN. (1970b). The place-names of Cheshire. Part two: The place-names of Bucklow Hundred and Northwich Hundred. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521079144.) states on page 274 (the entry is on pages 273 and 274) "Named from the R. Wheelock I 38.", where the "I 38" bit refers to Part one of his volumes, dealing with place, river and other geographical names. In that reference (Dodgson, J. McN. (1970a). The place-names of Cheshire. Part one: Country name, regional and forest names, river names, road names, the place-names of Macclesfield hundred. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521077036.) on pages 38–39 we read a lot about it, perhaps the key bits being: "This means 'winding river'" later on, it states it is from Old Welsh "chwylog" where "chwyl" means "a turn, a rotation, a course" with "og" as an adjective suffix. Dodgson, in turn, has made use of another book: Ekwall, E (1928). English River-Names. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dodgson then critically discusses whether Ekwall's account is correct, concluding that it is. So, I suggest that we should take the derivation as going: River Name -> Settlement Name. I think the books may be the better source regarding references here, as no one is likely to object. In which case, if you agree, I could edit them in, or you could if you want. Let me know.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Im fine with you editing them as you know what your talking about. PS is there a way of geeting your signiture to display without Copy and pasting it thanks ARBAY TALKies

Ok. I'll add it soon. To get your signature automatically added, you do have to type four characters at the end of your message. They are four "tildes"; that is: ~~~~ On a standard UK keyboard, they are probably found by doing a shift-#. I hope that helps.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks were do you put the [[User:ARBAY|<span style="color:#30F;">ARBAY</span>]] [[User_talk:ARBAY|<span style="color:#4682b4;">TALKies</span>]] to make it display when you type the four Tiles ARBAY (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to click on the "My preferences" tab at the top of the screen, and then enter the code (without the nowiki stuff) in the signature field a bit down the page. Make sure you tick the "raw signature" box as well. I hope that sorts it out.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

THANKYOUARBAY TALKies 16:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing the UK country merge

I've been discussing on User:Snowded's talk page the merits of canvassing the poll (within the guidelines of course). By the standards of many polls it seems to have a reasonable turnout - but it depends what the idea of a decent turnout is. In my opinion, most of these kind of polls are completely unknown to people, and really should be cancassed to some degree for the benefit of both Wikipedia and fairness in general. I didn't think of doing it with this one though, and it's started now. What do you think? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I would immediately advertise it (using the required neutral language) on all relevant project pages (the individual countries projects' talk pages) and noticeboards (e.g., the UK Wikipedians noticeboard, and possibly more). Because it has already started, it would be sensible to delay closing the poll for the standard number of days after the notices appeared, just to help prevent anyone feeling left out and complaining about things. I know it may well delay things somewhat, but it may be worth it to avoid problems further down the line. Does that help at all?  DDStretch  (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I somehow managed to miss this message when you wrote it! I'll compose it and put them in now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done the five you have detailed above, and the UK geography WikiProject. I've kept away from the main country articles (though it's where most of the debate has taken place in the past) as clearly the WikiProject's are more designed for this purpose. When do you recommend closing the poll? Sunday night (UK time)? I'm not sure what the typical allotted time is - was it 5 days? (I know they can go on longer). --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'm not sure about how long. I would say to keep it open for at least 5 days, and if contributions have effectively stopped by then, consider closing it. Another way of doing it would be to wait until three days have elapsed since the last opinion was contributed, provided that at closure, at least, say, 5 days have elapsed since it was called and advertised. That would mean a wait of 8 days if contributions were made up to the 5 day limit. I agree that there doesn't seem to be a well-defined across the board limit, but I think one should not be too hasty whilst still being reasonable.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We could see how it goes at first. Sunday night (or Monday morning) is 5 days, and gives weekend editors a chance to see it (which doesn't always happen with these things). Incidentally, I've found this Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_subdivisions - it seems to be disbanded, but I put the notice there as a matter of course. I think I'll declare the places I've notified on the merge talk - people will be able to see and consider that project page as part of the mix. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. From next Monday, I'm off for most of August out of Internet contact, other matters being resolved, that is, and if they aren't resolved, it is possible I'll still be out of action recovering from an injury that is being troublesome. So, I may not be around at the time it all finishes for a while.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:MagdelenaDiArco

Hi. I have recently been involved in a very long and drawn out content dispute along with several other editors against User:MagdelenaDiArco on the Talk:Maltese language - apparently there are versing sockpuppet cases (also including disruptive editing) where this user has been implied. However I cannot quite say I under stand what goes on but I have noticed this [User_talk:Fone4My#Sockpuppetry_.28second_section.29], this sockpuppet case [5] and this checkuser request [Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jack_Forbes]. I don't know what to make of this or how to react, could you comment please?·Maunus·ƛ· 18:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your message, alerting me to this. I can confirm that the above user is a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. I will be taking action shortly. I must also apologize for the mistake of overlooking this before, which may have resulted in more disruption carrying on. The case was complex, and some details got overlooked. However, that explains the mistake and does not excuse it. I'll also comment on the Talk:Maltese language page.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a prompt reaction!·Maunus·ƛ· 20:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that s/he is evading the block with the following identities that appeared after the block: User:Gianovito and UK IPs User:78.151.145.115, User:84.13.166.223, User:89.243.39.216 - identical, town and all, to User:89.242.104.114, who was blocked earlier today and whom she claimed not to be). Their common focus is the Talk:Maltese language talk page, where she had been participating in a discussion before the block, and above all banned user User:Giovanni Giove and his various blocked sock puppets, whose pages she was editing before she was blocked. When I responded to the IPs' comments on Talk:Maltese language and User talk:Maunus by suggesting that they are "her", they didn't object, rather, new IPs responded with unrelated quasi-ironic comments regarding the sock puppetry case.--Anonymous44 (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've commented on this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:MagdelenaDiArco - 2. – Steel 23:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

IP blocks

Hi Ddstretch. I noticed that you're indef-blocking IP addresses like 84.13.96.170 (talk · contribs · block log). This is something many new admins do until they realise that it should virtually never be done (see Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Block_lengths). If a vandal is switching IP addresses, and spending minutes on each IP, then long blocks on each IP are unlikely to be helpful and will only lock out good users. For IP addresses we indef-block the user, and not their IP. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem is that the user concerned has had all the registered accounts we can identify blocked, and yet is still using anonymous IP addresses to carry out identical vandalism to a variety of articles. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (4th) and related sockpuppet reports for this child. So far, we haven't been able to get anyone to look into rangeblocking or sending apprpriate messages to the child's ISP or school to take action to get them to stop, and the vandalism is ongoing and relentless. The blocks I imposed were, I hope, ones that allowed registered users to still use wikiepdia. What do you advise we do?  DDStretch  (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A range block of the 86.xxx.xxx, might be somehting to consider, aswell. He/she's been spewing hate-postings at British Isles, for far too long. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a different person, actually. In that case, it may be a registered user posting anonymously to avoid any block.  DDStretch  (talk)

Unfortunately that's about 17 million IP addresses. There seems to be about 6 /16 ranges on the sockpuppet report, which is 400,000 IPs. Unfortunately this is also related to the probability of the user using any particular IP twice. After undoing the indef-blocks I would consider semi-protection if there's a problem that can't be resolved otherwise (I haven't looked closely but changes in style or content can a useful way of stopping unwanted edits), and try to further pin down any ranges being used to properly assess some range blocks. There's also WP:ABUSE, though I find it unlikely an abuse department would respond to this. Beyond successfully assessing some suitable rangeblocks (which may not be possible), your options include strategic semi-protection, mindless blocking on sight, or something else. Such is the life of an admin. But long IP blocks will not be helpful to anyone. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Variable eyesight??

D, thanks for your advice on my page. But it follows a pattern I find distressing. All such deviations by myself and other Irish editors seem to be immediately spotted by not just one, but multiple Admins. Yet apparently, similar behaviour by those "on the other side" of the debate need to be constantly pointed out to an Admin (who usually ignores the complaint). Can you explain this phenomenon? Sarah777 (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't, since I haven't been involved in this before, but I have noted and given that user an immediate final warning for his abuse aimed at you on your talk page. I will do the same to people who reply in similar vein as long as I am online and spoty it, or have it pointed out. Note I am not going to be around for a while because of complicated illness and holida issues.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Dd, I think you meant Sarah 777, when you warned Tharky of personal attacks. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes - though I'm assuming you meant User talk:Sarah777, I still don't know which of my comments would be classed as a personal attack on her. Can you point it out please, so that I can avoid doing so in future? TharkunColl (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

D, I have more than enough hostiles on my tail without adding you to the list; be assured your advice is not being ignored. But in fairness I must say I don't think that Thark addressed any personal attacks at me personally - he hasn't even during our most bitter exchanges. (So far as I recall, I'm don't keep a grudge book!) Sarah777 (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Sarah - I always try never to descend to personal attacks. TharkunColl (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thumbs up for my Irish (Sarah) & British (Tharky) cousins. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hehe - yes, it must seem like we hate each other, but in real life the British and the Irish actually get on really well (most of the time). TharkunColl (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Undoubtedly true! Sarah777 (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(NUMEROUS edit conflicts!) Ok. My mistake. I will withdraw the warning and apologise. But be aware that if I see personal attacks from anyone, no matter who, in this dispute, action WILL be taken.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: See, you can work together at some level, and if I were devious, I could say I made the mistek deliberately to get you to perhaps see that. But it was a simple mistake.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Block of Papercup47

I ask that you reconsider. The block should be indefinite. I know I'm coming on strong, but this is a clearly disruptive sockpuppet created solely for unconstructive purposes. I don't want to have to deal with this all over again in two days. Thanks, Enigma ^message 07:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait for checkuser to confirm first. You want to be sure before you label someone a sock. Synergy 07:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Obviously one can't be 100% sure without checkuser (and even then you can't be 100% sure), but I'm 99% sure this is a sock. Not certain of which user, though. Enigma ^message 07:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that you've protected his talk page, would you mind declining the unblock request to remove it from the category? Synergy 07:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the deal is, but I got an unjustified vandalism notice from papercup too, for my last edit on the knightmare frame entry. I request a block as well. Westrim (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked im for attempting to fake unblocking notices from myself. I will decline the unblock request shortly. The amount of editing done by the user on the talk page has precluded swift action being possible at times.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Synergy 07:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for considering my request and extending the block. I requested checkuser assistance, by the way. We'll see how this turns out. Enigma ^message 07:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. What just happened, and why? Westrim (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You just got hit by a particularly disruptive editor. I hope there's been no lasting efefct upon you. Sorry for the problems this has caused.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it was only one entry. I'm just curious as to papercup's motive; I've never encountered this beforeWestrim (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

They had a vendetta towards Chrisjnelson. As for the rest of the junk, which you received part of, I don't know. Maybe it was supposed to be a cover or something. It was confirmed as a sockpuppet of User:Notepad47. This kind of editor is precisely the reason I had to ask for my talk page to be semi-protected. They'll be back. Enigma ^message 07:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Countries of the UK

Sorry to hear you're not well. Hope UK countries is looking better to you now. I'll keep refining it (standardising the links etc), going with consensus/suggestions/the flow etc, until it's the best it can be. There are a few places refs can be added to the main text etc. I think the steps that have been taken lately have been good ones, and even if it's not quite right yet, at least we've seriously moved forward (rather than just getting over a spate of drama, then rounding up the latest socks) - quite a rare sight on WP in my experience. The list of reliable refs you created will save lots of people hours of future nonsense - the fact they are reliable and cover everything (principality etc) makes them indispensable. The weeds have been pushing through the cracks - so hopefully this will help complete the UK picture. So don't worry about this one too much, and try and keep WP off your mind as much as you can justify (esp if it can wind you up as much as it does me).--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Hi DD,

I've reverted Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration again. I don't know how to put a reference to the movie into the article, especially seeing as how the whole article is about the movie. I've been told it's available on YouTube if you want to personally verify it...

You also reverted the article Ian Lines. The article piped "British" to "British Isles" (which is *always* incorrect), and I changed it to pipe from "British" to "United Kingdom". Seeing as how Ian is in the category of "English Croquet Players", I'm assuming you missed that when you reverted with the summary of do not replace one unverified term by another equally unverified term. take it to talk or tag it.

You also reverted "New Zealand European". You probably aren't aware that no country collects census stats listing "British Isles" as an ethnic origin. But you could simply click on the reference given in the article and you could simple see yourself. Your edit summary of do not replace one unverified term by another equally unverified term. take it to talk or tag it is odd seeing as this reference is already in place, and the article already refers to "British and Irish" in the lead.

You finally reverted Apotropaic magic with the same comment. The article piped "British" to "British Isles" (which is *always* incorrect), and I changed it to pipe from "British" to "United Kingdom". The full sentence reads "Ireland and Britain". What reference do you think needs to be added? It's obviously wrong.

I trust you'll revert yourself on these edits. --HighKing (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I won't revert myself, for the simple reason that wikipedia cannot be used to verify content on wikipedia, and so I'm not able to do that. Similarly, the fact that you do not yet know how to add a verification does not mean that you can absolve yourself of adding verification, or revert any change to other unverified material. If the content was inaccurate and could be verified in the manner you suggest by the material you have now given here, then it is your obligation to add the verification yourself when you changed the material, which is in agreement with wikipedia policy and normal standards of burden of proof. I suggest you read and understand my positive suggestion to you for how to improve your edits on your talk page.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Ian Lines, no references occur in the article at all, and so all purported facts in the article are unverified. So, no appeal to "English Croquet Players" could be done to verify your replacement even if we ignore the fact that wikipedia cannot be used to verify wikipedia. The problem is more widespread with that article than you realise! In the case of Apotropaic magic, te use of "British" is vague and ambiguous, and it cannot be said to be more properly United Kingdom rather than Great Britain, though I suspect Great Britain would have a greater chance of being accurate. So, I have tagged it and replaced the piped link with "Great Britain" as a stop-gap. In the case of "New Zealand European", you replaced "British Isles ethnic origin" with "British ethnic origin", but this is certainly unclear, as the reference seems to suggest that people from the geographical location known as the "British Isles" were the people concerned, and your edit seems to be restrictive. A better phrase, chosen with greater case, should be used instead. That is why a "clarify" tag would be the most appropriate tag to add if you did not have the time to sort it out yourself at the time.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi DD - apoligies for the rushed responses. I can see now that you're trying to help me, and I can ill afford to alienate friendly editors. Please accept my apologies. --HighKing (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with some of what you are saying on my Talk page, but I totally embrace the idea of a workgroup.

As to the edits on Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration, within the article meta-tags, it states: "Sticking strictly to the film with appropriate references will keep this article strictly about this film". I changed this article to beep in line with the dialog. I also confirm that you can view this scene online (YouTube). You've asked me to provide references for these changes - but the entire article is based on this movie - adding a reference to the movie to an article about the movie just seems like a circular reference, and my edit summary Minor correction in keeping with strict adherence to the film makes it clear that I changed to keep in line with the movie. I disagree with your reversion in this case - all the relevant information for my edit is already contained in the article, and adding a reference to my edit to this minor point is illogical.

I disagree specifically with the point you make regarding Ian Lines, but I understand and agree with the general point. Using the excuse that wikipedia can't be used to verify wikipedia is acceptable for obvious reasons, but it is *always* incorrect to pipe "British" to "British Isles". Always. Without exception. I changed the pipe from "British" to "United Kingdom" as being the most sensible due to the sentence structure. When correcting instances of the term "British Isles", I try to avoid changing the sentence structure as I am then accused of doing it to facilitate the removal of the term. In this case, I'll change the sentence structure to make it clear he played for Great Britain and has also represented England. And I'll add a reference.

I disagree (surprise surprise) with the New Zealand revert also - I've been involved in exactly this same discussion on the USA and Australia pages in the past. There is no such thing as a "British Isles" ethnic origin, and the census stats (first reference link at the bottom of the page) will show you that census stats gather data for ethnic origins of "European", "British", "Celtic", "English", "Irish", "Scottish", and "Welsh", etc - specifically the first reference here allows you to create your own analysis charts (but can't provide links to them). In addition, given that the context of the section is specifically entitled "British New Zealander", I again (obviously incorrectly) assumed an uncontentious correction. I will change the article and add a specific reference to the census website as you request.

We agree on the Apotropaic magic article. --HighKing (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've suggested forming a WikiProject British Isles for this very purpose, amongst other things (see my talk page). ðarkuncoll 16:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Haven't forgotten...

...your request for "eyes" on my talkpage. Blofeld has kept me bizzy with easier stuff, and I've succumbed to my own laziness. I will take a look at it, promise (I have been reading bits and pieces here and there). Quick question, and I realize there is a merge discussion happening, but why are there two articles in the first place? (Countries of...) and (Subdivisions of...). How did that happen? Aren't they fundamentally the same thing? Are there editors seriously against merging them, and if so, what are their rationale (s)? I'm not seeing it. As for your question at hand, I'm at an impasse at the moment. The chart did in fact play a role in my opinion for Wales, but really it was the abundance of the divergent sources more than the chart itself (although I really like the chart) that convinced me to opine for a pipelink to the Subd. article, does that make sense? I'm going to look around the Wiki for a bit to see if I can find another instance of a similar chart being used in that sense, where it is exclusively made up of reference links. I can't think of another example quite like that one, have you seen that elsewhere? I'm not saying that it isn't appropriate, any one article can set the precedence instead of follow it. These are my initial thoughts anyway, I'll keep poking around. Please reply here, your thread on my talk will soon archive itself, and I'll lose it amidst the myriad posts that are inevitably arriving whilst I sleep...Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 20:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Actually, the need has receded now, as I think people now see the advantages of having the table. The problem with the two articles is that some people object to the term "country" being used for all (some object to it being used for any) of the bits of the United Kingdom, and others object to the term "Subdivisions being used on various grounds (the fact that it should be "Divisions of..." as there are no higher-order divisions than the ones dealt with in the article, or that the term "subdivisions" means the adminsitrative lower tier of authorities that make up local government in the UK, rather than the "countries"), and so the whole area is confused because of a lack of clarity in the reliable sources and various POV being pushed, made the subject of accusations, or attempted to be avoided. As for the chart, as far as I know, there is no other use just like that which I know of on wikipedia, but it is a technique I have used myself in my own academic work: construct a table that cross-classifies things in ways which one needs to have in front of one so that the "bigger picture" of how the sources pan out can be seen, and I just directly applied it here, with teh support of others wo added to the table. (It has been tweaked a bit, and I hope it will be revised so that the recent additions won't destroy the inherent cleaness of the concept of the categorization intended, but with another table added to display the different kind of information that was shoe-horned into the table as I envisaged it.) I don't think it matters if it isn't anywhere else on wikipedia, as one should be driven by the needs of clarity, simplicity, and verification for the additions, and I think the table addresses all of that in an area which is sufficiently contentious that what I called a "Canonical display" of the terms used against the things being labelled by the terms would most easily show the diversity of the usage. It would, I hope, tend to reduce any edit-warring over matters that too often use reliable sources selectively. Indeed, I think such tables should be used more frequently in similar contentious areas on wikipedia. I think the current drama spread over a number of pages concerning the use of "British Isles" might profitably make use of a similar appoach, though any table might be of a different form, the main issue being the mere use of "British Isles" against what the intended use might have been, and what the other sources imply should be used.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent clarification. I'll keep reading at this point, and refrain from commenting, less someone accuses you and I of "canvassed" support for one particular viewpoint or another. As I said, I haven't seen a chart/table similar to the one on "Subd of", but again, something has to set the precedence for others' to refer to in any circumstance. I'm purposefully not commenting on the "british isle" stuff, though I did notice it on AN. Keeper ǀ 76 23:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Vale Royal Abbey

Hi! Thanks for adding the new material on Vale Royal and sorting out the nun's grave cite - I though it was as you've written but couldn't put my hand on the physical book that the reference was in... BTW, do you have sources for the Cholmondeleys and the post-dissolution history of Vale Royal? That part of the article needs a lot of work to expand and verify it and none of my sources really cover that period of the abbey. Best wishes, 22:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. The book I have and used gives some information about this, but I'd have to have a look at it again to make sure just how much it has on these matters. I know a bit more about the diposal and treatment of the Abbey lands (how the extra-parocial status was "resolved" in various ways). I'll take a look and see what I have. I do have another book which deals with Abbeys and monastic life in Cheshire, but it has bits of the book missing (like the reference section) and so I'm unsure about using it, and it doesn't deal wit much post-dissolution anyway. My main source would be to use the Victoria History volume which I own, but I see you've used that yourself, and so that won't help much. If I don't get back to you in about a wek, please remind me, but I'll try to search through what I have in terms of general histories of Cheshire, Ormerod's work and others of his time, and the old Cheshire Community Council volumes of Cheshire history and see if they can shed any light on the matter.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

I'm interested in this task force idea as I am heartily sick of this and related subjects. However I wonder if the issue is not wider. We have two clear clear extreme groups nationalist and unionist, plus groups who have nationalist or unionist orientation but are not POV, a very few neutrals and another interesting group who appear to believe there is a nationalist conspiracy (a sort of anti-nationalist but not pro-unionist) group. Tempers get frayed and people seize on the odd sentence or word rather than reading what people say, then label them for life. I've had a couple of experiences myself relating to that last point that have brought me close to giving up this experiment of editing. I wonder if there is not a case to set up a wider task force on this bigger issue and get some mediation in place between editors in the various schools? I spend a lot of my time in the real world in serious conflict resolution work and I don't think this is going to be solved around the British Isles alone. --Snowded TALK 03:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I think you are right that the issue is wider, and I believe it is caused by an underlying failure compounded by deliberate actions on the part of others who enjoy watching a fight, and who might even help instigate one. The underlying failure concerns a problem or even a deficiency in people's ability to engage in true critical thinking and reasoning about matters within the context of what wikipedia is supposed to be, and the presence of trolls and baiters who are drawn to controversial areas like flies round a dungheap compound the matter. There is probably also no NPOV possible in this case, and so some debate on how to proceed is required. I think the contributions of TharkunColl are unlikely to be useful, given his previous history of being provocative, baiting, and trolling, and so I am very concerned that any process started to try to resolve this matter should come under his influence (see the choice of name he has made for his proposed wikiproject, which is immediately provocative to editors who we will need to convince and persuade to resolve the "British Isles" issue.) Perhaps the wider issue does need some greater attention, but because it is greater, it may have less chance of getting started (because there are more opportunities for disruption of various forms to take place). That shouldn't mean we don't try, however. The question is, what next? I'm waiting for some additional input on WP:AN/I about my message concerning Tharkuncoll's actions.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you here! I am still reeling from attacks by JZA84 and a refusal to discuss the issues off line to prevent public conflict. Deeply depressing really - I envy you your soon to come break! OK I will wait- happy to support whatever you think is best. You managed to initiate the process that resolved Wales, if you can do the same here that would be great. Just let me know what you need by way of support (or for that matter what you don't need!) --Snowded TALK 15:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just seen your header - get well soon, sorry to hear about holiday --Snowded TALK 15:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I add to the message above my best wishes for good progress with all your current difficulties. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If it is going to be a Wikiproject (should that be the best route) I personally believe that 'British Isles' should be the name used (whatever Tharcuncolls motives for suggesting it are - and it has been suggested before by others anyway), as it will be about how to use that commonly-used term: and it can list the geographical articles, etc. If it's another route, then a name that suits the situation would be better, I agree.

Snowded - I have to say that you missed out a major 'group' (or player) in your assessment - Sarah777! (but et al? I'm not sure if all the players constitute 'groups'?). People who are trying to be fair with word "British Isles" (like myself) are often called "British Nationalists" (in the loaded sense). It is an illogical assumption to make - Britain, and therefore British people, simply exit. I first encountered this last year - the first POV I noticed surrounding the UK. I'm not sure there is an actual 'unionist' group as such? Tharkuncoll perhaps - but I discount all IP's and trolls like EmpireForver. Jza84 has been a bit narrow-focused and non-'general reader' (even pretentious) on 'UK diversity' (and he was just wrong to jump into UK like he did), but he seems like he's just a 'Brit', like me. And he has chosen to step away from UK, I noticed.

This is a very serious point I'm making. "Six of one.."/labelling 'thinking' is something I'm very wary of. We must try not to offend each other (hard I know), and I think this can lead to that - and somewhat misrepresent things too, creating bogies where there are none.

Personally, I am British, but I feel very aggrieved when I'm referred to as a 'unionist' (I'm not saying you are doing this, but others have). I am a pragmatic man, and am British because Britain exists - and I am 'made in Britain'. Culturally I am British, though much of it is Welsh too (and of course, they combine anywyay). It's the way things have been - why should I change it, or be called something else, like I'm a campaigner, a radical, or even an oppressor? Sometimes people very much into independence can mis-compare and overplay the actual state of affairs. Independence is a (perhaps noble?) aim, but Britain is a reality.

I can understand why you are sick of the whole identity thing - but it's partly because you are only recently getting into bits of it (like BI) and I can see on BI talk and Shannon too that it is frustrating to you that people aren't playing ball. Many on Wikipedia have been trying to find a way though it for a long time - we need to be patient, keep moving, keep talking, keep exploring, and always be open to compromise when we can. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you two want a sandbox page with which you can continue attacking me? :P --Jza84 |  Talk  20:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hardly a huge attack, though was it? I've actually got nothing against you at all personally (you always seemed decent enough) - it's just some of your actions lately. As an admin your actions are subject to more intense criticism, as far as I'm concerned. All admin are. Wikipedia Intros are my 'thing' ('speciality' was as word I've seen you once use for it). You seem to be trying to reduce them into bland little stubs! Why don't you trust Wikipedians into editing until they get it right? I can't help worrying that a kind of 'reductive' bias is coming through here. Call me a cynic. Ironically, my politics are probably not that far from yours, perhaps.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't attack you Jza84, I said I was surprised at being attacked and your refusal to talk about it. Matt - understand points happy to talk about this but lets leave Ddstretch to recover. --Snowded TALK 21:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know that whichever type of group is chosen in the end - Task Force or WikiProject - I shall, of course, be an active member of. ðarkuncoll 23:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

On that note I suggest requesting this at Geography and asking a neutral to open it for us? Any objections? I'll propose doing this on the BI Terminology talk page now: with the title "British Isles terminology'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The link: Talk:Terminology of the British Isles#British Isles Terminology Task force. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)