User talk:Ddstretch

You can click here to leave me a new message with a new subject heading. I will reply on this page unless you request otherwise.

• Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end.
• For replies to previous messages, please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply).
• I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to Watch this page until you are responded to.

Archives

1: July 2006 - November 2006

2 - November 2006 - August 2007

3 - August 2007 - (continues)

SandBoxes

New Table of Civil Parishes classified by Settlement

/Sandbox 2

Possible Noticeboard strip for Cheshire Project and work on specifying ecclesiastical parishes of Cheshire

Rough Barebones article for a Civil Parish within Cheshire

Article1 Sandbox

Article2 Sandbox

Ecclesiastical Parish Template workspace

Civil Parish Template workspace

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 [1]

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! 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)

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))