User talk:Ddstretch/Archives/2009/January

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Football in Yorkshire

Whilst I take a look at Talk:United Kingdom, could you look at User:Peanut4 and Football in Yorkshire? Yorkshirian's been upto his old tricks, and we both know he's a difficult one to manage. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Ok. Will do. My first impression is that the anonymous abuser of your talk page needs action taken against them, and given the nature of the abuse, and the fact that sectionally it was closely related to the peanut4 stuff, I've blocked them for 24 hours (please feel free to revert this if you think this too much). I'll take a greater look at the other stuff shortly.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

As a result of this case, the community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. If the discussion does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure. Until such procedures are implemented Ireland and related articles shall remain at their current locations. Once the procedures are implemented, no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Tiptoety talk 04:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Rand Protection

I don't think its necessary to protect the article. While there have been sharp disagreements on the Talk page, the actual edit-warring was between 2-3 editors (Snowded, Kjaer, and Steve). If any of these editors violated 3RR, the offenders should each be blocked in accordance with that policy, but there is no reason to protect the entire article. Idag (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your view. The views of others who consulted with me (including another administrator) differ. Though if you want to put in a formal request, please feel free to do so. The protection will not last for much longer, and as others have stated in different context, there is no time-limit by which edits have to be done. My own feeling is that I would prefer to see clear evidence of appropriate behaviour on the talk page which would then indicate that edit-warring may not re-occur, before the page is unprotected.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I ought to add, just to make it clear, that I am still open to change my opinion about this. If some tangible edit that was desired came out of the talk page, and removing the protection early would facilitate it being added, then that would certainly lead me to remove the protection early, though that wouldn't be the only way; it would merely be the best way. So, push ahead with the suggestions currently on the talk page, and see what happens. Also note that 3rr only describes the maximum leeway people may have in edit-warring: under circumstances where it has happened before, and editirs have been warned about it, or even blocked about it, less reverts can easily result in blocks being given, and this can be seen on reading the appropriate section of WP:3rr.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it is better to leave protection on for the stated time, or even to extend it for a few more days. I'm sorry to see that Idag included me among those who are said to be edit warring. I think that there is good reason to believe that a better article will come out of the current teapot tempest, but not if protection is lifted too soon. It would also look bad to lift protection at the request of Idaq, when Kjaer is blocked. I believe that the only person who may truely be intransigent is Snowded (I haven't had much experience with TallNapoleon yet). I know that Kjaer is willing to remove names that are not notable or haven't been influenced, as am I. But he is being quite open and honest in stating his opinion that Snowded and others are working an agenda. The others I mention are those who have openly stated a dislike for Rand. In a heated, contentious situation like this, I'd think they'd be happy to work on another article. My two cents is to give the protection a little more time for a concensus to appear on a specific set of names, a format for the names, and the agreement to accept that and move on. I don't think it is that far off - if there is some give from Snowded and TallNapoleon, or given their dislike for Rand, a withdrawal from the article, that lets others, myself included, believe that they are not adamant on exclusionary, deletist policies even if it means refusing to recognize valid notability and influence. I will make a suggestion on the talk page as soon as I post this. --Steve (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I bring to your attention User Snowded's recent tampering with other user's heads on the Ayn Rand Talk Page, and to the hostile language and taunts of the User Damian to which I dare not respond at risk of sanction myself. I request that Damian be notified of the inappropriateness of his remarks. I also ask that the protection on the article be indefinitely extended given the games which are still being played.Kjaer (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, his user name is Peter Damian. He taunts: "So what are you talking about? Are you mad? Peter Damian (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

...Or perhaps it would suggest that the author of the article was a barking lunatic, eh Kjaer? Peter Damian (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)"

If you are overwhelmed, or, as you told CABlankenship, you wish to walk away, please refer this to another admin. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjaer (talk • contribs)

I've responded on User talk:Kjaer, wich states that appropriate action has been taken, and which also suggests ways of dealing with similar concerns in future.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That book...

Local Government in England and Wales: A Guide to the New System. Now in my possession!

It comprises:

  1. A good general introduction to the reforms.
  2. Tables of functions of different levels of local government.
  3. List of all the new authorities with constituent units, area, population estimate and number of members of new councils.
  4. Lists of all the old county boroughs, non-county boroughs, urban districts and rural districts and where they were transferred to.
  5. Lists of successor parishes, divided parishes, former rural boroughs, and single parish rural districts etc which became civil parishes in England on 1/4/74
  6. Similar list in respect of Welsh communities
  7. Towns with charter trustees
  8. Timetable of elections
  9. Addresses of new authorities
  10. New National Health Service authorities
  11. New Regional Water Authorities
  12. Map 1: Administrative areas. Areas at a 1/4/74 printed in red, superimposed on boundaries of authorities at 31/3/74 in grey.
  13. Map 2: Health authorities.
  14. Map 3: Water authorities.

I know you were interested, so if there's anything you want extracted feel free to ask. Lozleader (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it came from Germany... Nobody seemed to be buying it so... I have you to thank for the link. So thx.
Anyway... the scan is no problem. As far as parishes in Cheshire (or anywhere else) are concerned it doesn't list them unless a rural district was divided or the parish was split or renamed. It does list the small urban districts/boroughs that became successor parishes. Otherwise they were unchanged in 1974 AFAIK. But if you have Youngs handy (and if you don't I do) it might be possible to figure it out, though. Perhaps it is grouping of parishes you are intersted in? I don't think this leaves much of a paper trail, so might have to remain a mystery....Lozleader (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheshire parishes in 1974

Scan will be done in due time. Just from a quick run through these seeem to the effects on parishes in 1974:

Chester District: Chester and Tarvin RDs transferred wholesale, with CPs intact. This would include Chester Castle I presume, which is too small to show up on the map! Chester CB became an unparished area.

Congleton District: Congleton RD transferred in its entirety, so CPs unchanged. New successor parishes of Alsager, Middlewich and Alsager. The former municipal borough of Congleton became an unparished area (it has since been parished).

Crewe and Nantwich District: Nantwich RD transferred with CPs intact; successor parish of Nantwich formed; Crewe became unparished.

Ellesmere Port District: No parishes

Halton District: CPs of Daresbury, Moore and Preston Brook ex Runcorn RD; Hale CP from Whiston RD; Widnes and Runcorn unparished.

Macclesfield District: Former municipal borough of Macclesfield and Wilmslow UD unparished; New successor parishes of Alderley Edge, Bollington and Knutsford formed; following parishes from Bucklow RD: Agden, Ashley, Aston by Budworth, Bexton, Bollington (renamed Little Bollington), High Legh, Little Warford, Marthall, Mere, Millington, Mobberley, Ollerton, Peover Inferior, Peover Superior, Pickmere, Plumley, Rostherne, Tabley Inferior, Tabley Superior, Tatton and Toft; entire Macclesfield RD with CPs intact; Disley RD which consisted of a single parish became Disley CP.

Vale Royal District: Entirely parished: successor parishes of Northwich and Winsford, entire Northwich RD, following CPs from Runcorn RD: Alvanley, Antrobus, Aston, Dutton, Frodsham, Gt Budworth, Helsby, Kingsley, Manley, Sutton, Whitley.

Warrington District: Warrington CB area unparished. New successor parish of Culcheth and Glazebury (from Culcheth and Newchurch wards of Golborne UD), successor parish of Lymm, following parishes from Runcorn RD: Appleton, Grapenhall, Hatton, Stockton Heath, Stretton, Walton; all CPS in Warrington RD; part of the parish of Bold, Whiston RD within designated area of Warrington New Town was added to the parish of Great Sankey (remainder became Bold CP in St Helens Met Borough)

Lozleader (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Local government authorities in Cheshire

I noticed on Lozleader's talk page you were looking for information on the former local government authorities in Cheshire. Can I suggest you try :- List of rural and urban districts in England You may also find the following useful :- List of civil parishes in England Bear in mind that you need to check the entries under Greater Manchester and Merseyside in addition to Cheshire, as the civil parishes are listed under current ceremonial counties. You may also find the "A Vision Of Britain Through Time" website useful (though it's not always completely accurate) :- http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/index.jsp Skinsmoke (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Yes, I'm already familiar with those articles, some of which are not really adequately referenced at all, and others to do with Cheshire I had a major hand in writing when I first started out on wikipedia: I now tend to use more definitive sources for such matters, such as Youngs, F. A. (1991), Guide to the local administrative units of England. Volume II: Northern England, London: Royal Historical Society, ISBN 0861931270, though sometimes one is forced to go to official UK government sources, especially for details of past areas, some of which were in existence for only a limited period of time. If possible, I try to avoid using the various websites, and most of those transcribe information (sometimes not entirely clearly) from sources I already have, such as the Youngs book. I already know most of the former local government areas including those who have subsequently been placed in differing county-level authorities, but wanted some easy-to-edit and easy-to-transcribe maps for them, because the ones I have already (from Phillips and Phillips otherwise excellent book (Phillips, A. D. M.; Phillips, C. B. (2002), A new historical atlas of Cheshire, Chester, UK: Cheshire County Council and Cheshire Community Council Publications Trust, ISBN 0904532461) would make for a more difficult job of transcription. The additional checks I needed were to confirm what I had already sourced, but for which the present local government officers couldn't confirm: I just wanted an extra "safety net" of verification about various civil parishes in the present Chester District, which I now think I have. Nevertheless, I appreciate the time you've taken to help out with the suggestions, and I had already noted the good work you've been doing on various Cheshire articles and elsewhere, and so thanks for the suggestions.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Had a look at your user page with the "big list". [1]. I wonder if you familiar with History of local government districts in Middlesex, which was largely the work of User:MRSC who appears to have sadly left the project, although I did quite a bit of work on it too. You will see it extends back before 1894 as the urban and rural districts did not spring fully-formed into existence at that date! Also the PLUs are perhaps useful as they later defined the rural districts, which often had odd boundaries. I know this makes it all more work, but i would love to see something like it for all the pre-1974 counties! Incidentally, www.historicaldirectories.org contains a lot of Kelly's Directories which often give suprisingly detailed information on local government boundary changes and authorities. They don't have anything newer than about 1919 IIRC.
Yes, Vision of Britain needs using with care as it is all transcribed with varying accuracy. Also the sections regarding anything in Wales use modern Welsh language names for areas which at the time only had English ones in officialdom - and let me point out I do not have a negative attitude towards the tongue, it's just a bit like calling the Victorian regiment the Royal Mumbai Fusilers!
A useful source is also the county census reports which give details of changes (although this is where VoB/Youngs got their info, largely). I remember when I lived near Cardiff the reference library there had every volume for England and Wales from 1901 to 1971, and I have the notebooks to prove it! Lozleader (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for the response. I have looked at the article about Middlesex you mention, and it was that which gave me the basic idea for the one about Cheshire. I was intending to have another table including the PLUs and Sanitary Districts as well, but decided that I would split the table at the point of the late 19th century year when the local government districts that sprang from the PLU and RSDs/USDs came into being. That way, the table wouldn't grow even larger. I'd welcome any comments about this design decision.

I'm taking it "one step at a time" because even with some of the entries in the current table, I've had to go to the civil parish part of Youngs to get the details (e.g., Tittenley) because it is missed out of the part devoted to urban and rural districts. There is also missing data in Youngs about dates often, but they are given in the VoB site, but they state that they have used Youngs as a reference, and I can see how they might have done it, but wonder if they did use the right amount of care to do it properly. I'm checking them slowly by cross-checking the relevant civil parish detauls in Part One (the civil parish) part of Youngs, but it is time=comsuming. I agree that this kind of material would be great to have for all counties. I'm intending this to go into the history section for Cheshire, as part of what I call (as a very rough working title) the "interior history": I have another idea brewing which would describe changes in county boundaries over time, perhaps presented as a time-line for Cheshire (the "exterior history" if you like) complete with maps showing the results of the changes.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Boxes on user page

How do you get all the badges on the right side? I want some of them!!! Kingalex1st (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've moved your question to its own section at the end of my talk page. What you need to do, if you mean the userboxes on my user page, is enclose all the ones you want with two template: At the top you put {{Userboxtop}} then you put all the userboxes in; and this is followed by adding {{Userboxbottom}} at the end. This has the effect of moving all the userboxes to the right hand side of the page, but you must put the individual user boxes in one per line - some of the ones I've included are better with a space in between each line, but you can try it out and see. I hope that helps.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

scans

12 emails received, thank you very much :) I shall have a look through them and update the article accordingly. You've done me a big favour, I really appreciate it.  :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Yorkshirian

A discussion has been initated there and I'd welcome your input. However, I'll understand if you don't want to get involved. --Jza84 |  Talk  03:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Rand

Yeah, it's just hardly worth it. These editors on that page are fanatics. They just try to wear people down. I'm probably going to move away from the political figures and stick to the academic pages where there is less of this hassle. I still think it's unfortunate that a few cultists are able to distort and interfere with an entire article. I also agree with you that there is way too much nonsense on that page, and "the less said the better". A ton of the material on Rand (particularly the Objectivism article) is just low-brow original research consisting of fawning quotes from her followers. It's a joke. But it would take an outright war to change any of that. The problem is that there are very few fair editors who would even bother taking these fanatics on. Like you said, most of us simply have better things to do. CABlankenship (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm diving back into that article for a few days. I really planned on staying away, but they need another voice, and I think I can do some good. I'm going to strive to maintain a birds-eye view and attempt to actually increase the quality rating of the article without letting my bias get in the way (so much as possible). CABlankenship (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

EuroHistoryTeacher

Hi there. I am planning to file a detailed request for comment on EuroHistoryTeacher's behaviour. Are you willing to add your feedback too? He's currently on a 3RR block but I fully expect things to resume with a vengeance when he returns. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm busy embroiled in other matters concerning disruptive editors, including a min-campaign that started this evening which is accusing me of being an "editing nazi" across wikipedia (see history of this page and that IP editor's editing history). So I may not have too much time, but I think there is a need to guide EuroHistoryTeacher, and so would be willing to help, but I'm not too sure on how much time I could devote to it. I think I could add, with a bit of expansion, the message I essentially posted to WP:AN about him, if that is what you were thinking of. I hope that would help.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Castle Hotel, Halton

Saved; thanks for your support. This means that all the Grade II* listed buildings in Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire now have an article (and a blue link). It's hard work trying to get a FL! Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Lancashire Tea

Would you do me the honour of placing this on your watchlist? I'm assuming good faith with 86.162.151.46 (talk · contribs)... and An index of metals (talk · contribs). --Jza84 |  Talk  01:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. It reads odd, but who knows?  DDStretch  (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
How about adding "The brand derives its name because Newton-le-Willows was historically a part of Lancashire" to the article? That way Lancashire is mentioned (it would seem odd not to mention it in an article about Lancashire Tea), but we avoid the fringe view that the town is still in the county. Nev1 (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
That would seem to solve a few of the problems, and so it might be a good move.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Done, hopefully this should help. Nev1 (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
My concern was that Newton-le-Willows might just be its HQ or factory. I know it's based in the town, but there's no evidence as such that the tea is branded Lancashire Tea because of this arrangement. Some Eccles Cakes are made outside of Eccles, whilst Cheshire Cheese is made outside of Cheshire. I think the confusion is that because the tea is made there/managed from there, the brand alludes to the geography of its base. The reality is its a simple advertising ploy playing on the success of Yorkshire Tea to futher its sales. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I just looked at some sources, and the name is just for marketing, not because Newton-le-Willows was in Lancashire. I'll put that in the article. Nev1 (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Would be great if you could - I don't think I'm getting my point across on the talk page. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

An AfD nomination might give the creator a slightly more forceful idea of what is and what is not required...  DDStretch  (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. On reflection, is this article even worth this disagreement? Is it encyclopedic? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Long talk

Hi. You removed {{longtalk}} from Talk:Ayn Rand after archiving the page. I added the template at 490,267 bytes, and you removed it at 276,141 bytes. Please note, the template states, "This talk page is 150 kilobytes or more in size. Some browsers may have difficulty rendering this page. Please consider archiving older discussions." The talk page is still above 150kb. FWIW, 155,508 byte talk pages like Talk:Argentina still crash mobile browsers. The talk page should remain tagged. Viriditas (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Argh! Ok. If you haven't already, I'll go back and reinsert it! Thanks for pointing out my mistake.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite
00:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Request for Arbitration

A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [[2]]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Rand

Thanks for the message. Yes, it's a problem which of course has been much discussed elsewhere, and leaves me in two minds about Wikipedia, though I use it daily and have written various articles for it. In an ideal world the content would be written by experts only, but then there wouldn't be the quantity. What Wikipedia seems particularly good for (IMHO) is scientific/technical articles, as the authors sad enough to bother (and I include myself in this) are rather likely to have the necessary expertise.

Perhaps there could be some kind of expertise weighting - I don't know - so people with at least a degree, ideally a PhD, in the relevant subject would have more of a say. Maybe something somewhat like this could be implemented e.g. by having 'official' versions of articles approved by admins, which really just displays a particular (tidy & accurate) earlier version, with the current version simply being re-labelled a 'draft'. (Somewhat like, but with more critical mass than, the lame Citizendium.) And over time, admins with the relevant qualifications could be assigned to all subject-areas, so all important articles would have official versions. Actually I suspect this might be rather easy, and effective, from a technical and practical point of view, and need not disenfranchise or alienate the current Wikipedians (who can continue usng and editing drafts just as before, and many articles might never get an official version). But no doubt this has all been endlessly discussed elsewhere. Ben Finn (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen the discussions surrounding flagged revisions? Something very similar to what you describe has been possible to configure for some time now. The problem is the perennial wikipedia problem of herding cats. --Malleus Fatuorum
If the strategies were adopted, there's a chance that I would end up being the only "expert" for Mathematical psychology, which would please me no end! It isn't the worst example of a psychology article, but it is a bit unbalanced. The reason I began to edit articles on local government in the UK, and Cheshire in particular was the poor quality of psychology articles and the large number of people who seemed to take offence at any of their text being altered (very like the Ayn Rand case!) Well, given what I now know about the total editing behaviour of the total mass of editors who deal with local government topics in the UK taken as a whole, I think frying pans and fire come to mind. The whole thing is very demoralising at times. On a related matter, I toyed with the idea of editing various articles about Argumentation Theory and Informal Logic, since I've done research and taught at university level in those areas as well. I was put off by very similar comments to those I made about psychology from a number of professional philosophers on an academic philosophy group which I contribute to. I wonder if the feeling would be the same in pretty much any professional group regarding the most relevant topics to them on wikipedia? I suspect so in general. (I've now just realised that the capitalisation of the article on "Mathematical Psychology" isn't even correct from my own perspective: it is a two-word proper name!)  DDStretch  (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the expertise card can be overplayed. It's rather easy to become an expert in a restricted field of study the "Zulu principle", and PhDs are generally very knowledgeable about very little. Added to which, experts in a field are bound to disgree just as much as non-experts, perhaps even more. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Re flagged revisions, I see what you mean. That is similar to what I had in mind, which after a few more minutes' thought would be something like this:
Each article's tab would be renamed from 'article' to (say) 'latest version' or 'latest draft'. An admin (or maybe 2 admins) who have some expertise in the field can approve a particular draft - perhaps similar to marking it as Good, though the draft perhaps needn't be as complete as Good, as long as it was tidy and accurate - in which case a further tab appears (to the left of 'latest version', and the default result when you visit the page) called say 'recommended' or 'recommended version'. This page is always merely a view of the historic version when the article was approved. Editing the article always edits the latest version. Anyone is free to look at the 'recommended' version (by default, if present) or the 'latest' version (which is typically more up-to-date but less tidy and accurate); this naming (or something similar) hopefully presents the benefits of both. There should also be a tab or link which shows the differences between the two versions in a clear way.
This is similar to Citizendium (AFAIK), but with admins as experts. Admins should be assigned to subject areas in which they have some expertise, and perhaps in due course a minimum level of expertise (e.g. PhD level) would be required for an admin to approve an article. This would then give such articles a somewhat reliable level of quality. Also, I'm not suggesting that these admins would make substantial changes to the articles before approving them - though they could do; rather than they just wouldn't approve an article that was not up to scratch.
While I take the points about experts disagreeing, presumably those of PhD level & above who are admins should be able to ensure that articles are largely neutral and objective, even if this disagrees with their personal view. (E.g. university lecturers have to present points of view that they disagree with, without distorting them too much.) Or perhaps I am too optimistic! Ben Finn (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I see now this is very similar specifically to Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions/Quality_versions - I'll look at the discussion on that. Ben Finn (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I have one very strong objection to your proposal; granting the ability to approve revisions to administrators. Most of them are 12 years old for heaven's sake! --Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Though it could become another reason for unbundling the admin tools, or restricting admins to people over the age of majority in their jurisdiction. (long pause) Ok. It won't happen, so let's just say, not admins.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Unbundling is the obvious solution, but the historical trend on wikipedia has been for bundling, so it'll never happen, as you say. At least not until all of the turkeys have had a change of heart. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Well maybe admins have to have at least a degree in a relevant subject to be allowed to approve articles. Don't need to change who are the admins, just say that they can't all do this. After all, a physics-degree admin shouldn't be allowed to approve French literature articles, regardless of age. Ben Finn (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Most admins are still in high school, dreaming about having a degree in anything at all. The system is broken, but it can't be fixed. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire FL

Made it! Thanks for your support and encouragement. It's the first featured anything that is "purely" Cheshire. Almost worth all the work and aggro (and my own struggling with an unstable broadband connection - I'm about to change my provider). Now that Espresso Addict is back in action we may be able to take WikiProject Cheshire forward. I see my own function as a writer/improver of articles, rather than doing the clever things that need to be done to advance the project (but I suppose we need all sorts!). Good to see you active on the project again, too. Best wishes. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Troubles

I think you're looking for WP:AE--Tznkai (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not doing too well with this one, am I? I'll transfer it again.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about it.--Tznkai (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Over catting

I saw your concern over overcatting. If you feel it is important then I'm guessing you rememeber your edits. Derbyshire is currently being "tidyed" too Can't say I see this as an improvement. Are there others that would like this matter dealt with by consensus? I have added a note to the tidiers page. I am hoping to raise this at "Categories for Discussion" if a compromise cannot be agreed locally. Victuallers (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I know what the issue is, and recall it well. Nothing has been done about Cheshire, and I'm not sure if anything got done about West Yorkshire, which was also a problem. If the same stuff is being done to Derbyshire, may be it requires a wider discussion. What I was planning to do with Cheshire was wait until the new local government districts came into force, and then to merely edit the categories back into a smaller, more manageable state, at that point, leading to an emptying of the little used categories, incapable of being "filled up" any more, and then submitting a large CfD request. It would be good if other editors did not create this amount of unnecessary work for us, though.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Leeds

A formal merge has been proposed by another user, if you want to put in our comments. Keith D (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Will do, and thanks. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your revert to Macclesfield

Hey--not sure if this was a mistake or not, but this revert and your subsequent message to E Wing seems a bit off. How is this simple wikilink unsourced? Also, I have to remind you that E Wing is a long-term editor and WP:DTTR should be kept in mind. Cheers. freshacconci talktalk 15:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Because I believe in this case, it was justified. This is because they should have known better: the information is about a living person, and so WP:BLP clearly applies: it is a policy on wikipedia, and WP:DTTR is merely an essay. Additionally, the editor says they are involved in countering vandalism, which would seem better to require a knowledge of WP:BLP. Furthermore, there is a section on the article's talk page about unsourced additions to the article's Notable Residents section where instructions are given about how to proceed.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It's obviously not an important issue, so I don't want to make a big deal of it, but I guess I'm just curious: how is wikilinking Joy Division an issue that needs sourcing, or how is it a WP:BLP issue? Ian Curtis is not a living person and I don't think that wikilinking Joy Division implies that the surviving band members are from Macclesfield. As I said, however, no an important issue to waste too much time on. Just wondering. freshacconci talktalk 15:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I'll remove the warning as I was under the impression that Ian Curtis was still living until I read the (also unreferenced) article on wikipedia about him: clearly there is a problem with the unreferenced mature of this which is contributing to the problems. Unreferenced material can still be removed. A different editor had also added related unreferenced material just prior to the one we are discussing now. Finally, even if we take Ian Curtis to be at all reliable (which cannot be guaranteed), the claim in it about Macclesfield makes no sense: the "Rainow area of Macclesfield" just is nonsensical: it would have made more sense if it had said "Rainow in the borough of Macclesfield", in which case, the claim should have been placed in Macclesfield (borough) and not Macclesfield. This is because Macclesfield and Rainow are distinct settlements with their own civil parishes within the larger Local Government Area that happens to be called "Macclesfield Borough". If there is doubt, claims need sourcing, which is standard wikipedia practice, and, as I've said, there is doubt about the connection.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you take a look

Hi, if you can find a little time, can you take a look at a long slow-burn edit war happening at Anglo-Celtic Australian please? I'm involved. It is a content dispute, but Goramon is probably a new editor and is making the classic mistakes and is now starting to make personal comments. For my own part, I'm just trying to keep the article relatively stable. If you have the time, I'd appreciate any advice - what did I do wrong, what should I have done, etc? I'm scratching my head wondering how I've managed to get dragged into this... Thanks, no worries if you can't. --HighKing (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I've thought about this, and I really think my commitments are too great at the moment to do much: I have badly neglected a project I was the founding member for, and it badly needs more input. So I committed myself to doing more on it just before your request came in. I can't set aside any more time for a while dealing with the edit-warring that takes place on other articles which is so solu-destroying to anyone who is involved or who wants to try to sort it out. I wonder of a call for help at WP:AN wwould find you a different admin to ask. Sorry for not being able to sort it out for you.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey no worries. Thanks for considering - I'm at full stretch myself too, really need to scale back. Take care. --HighKing (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Glastonbury

Hi. In Glastonbury Festival on 23 December, you reverted a change of 'Thosore' to 'Thodore', without noticing that the whole name was vandalism, by the same user who 'adjusted' his handiwork. I've changed it back to the correct 'Michael Eavis' now. cheers! Earthlyreason (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for that. Normally, I look at article history and then perhaps editor history in these kinds of cases, but I must have been diverted in some way when I did that. Thanks for letting me know.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dunham Hill

Got your message. Okay, I just revised "Template:Cheshire, Chester District" and Dunham-on-the-Hill to pipelink / redirect to Dunham Hill, Cheshire. That should take care of most of the inbound links. I think it takes a few hours or a day for all the links on a template to update fully, meaning so that "What links here" at Dunham Hill no longer will show them. Could you please clean up any stragglers after that? Thanks, doncram (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

CfD in/of

I would appreciate if you could comment here else it will totally get lost in the mass of nominations for the day. The last few CfD's resulted in an "in" so that is what I was going to create a new category and then found a "of" category already existing. If the consensus goes for "of" this time I'll delete the new one myself. Agathoclea (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

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/Ayn Rand/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/Ayn Rand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hartford, Cheshire

Thanks for rejigging that information. I'm really just dipping my toe in the water at the moment, and all the lengthy WP guidelines and templates are a lot for a new user to take on board. When I feel a little more confident I probably will join the Cheshire project, as I think I can probably make a useful contribution. In the meantime I'll try not to cause too much damage with my edits :-) Old Wittonian (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Leeds

Hi there :-)

Your last edit on leeds seems inconsistent with the previous sentance above it, and so makes the whole paragraph feel clumsly imo. ...

..the wider City of Leeds metropolitan borough has a population of 761,200 (mid-2007 estimate) and is one of the eight largest English cities outside London that form the English Core Cities Group.[3] Leeds lies near the centre of the West Yorkshire metropolitan county which was estimated to have a population of 2.2 million in 2007.[4]

Surely it would be best to stick with the convention style that already exists? to read...

Leeds lies near the centre of the West Yorkshire metropolitan county which has a population of 2.2 million (mid-2007 estimate)

Although to be fair, it begs the question why "mid-2007 estimate" is needed as it is already explained that it is is a mid-2007 estimate in the source citation, and seems overly pedantic making the page read clumsily. You are an editor on the manchester page, which reads...

Manchester was granted city status in 1853. It has a population of 458,100,[2] and lies at the centre of the wider Greater Manchester Urban Area, which has a population of 2,240,230,[3]

..in this instance, both figures are again mid 2007 estimates, yet this is not mentioned. Infact, even in the citation, the word 'extimate' has been removed too. I trust you will revert these edits too, or explain why you feel there is a difference?

Thanks for your time, Razorlax --Razorlax (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I will do nothing of the sort: Just because I am a member of a project does not mean I monitor each article with which that project is concerned. I think it is best to be quite explicit about the basis of figures in the text itself rather than merely trusting to what the reference states. If you wish to dispute this, take it to the article talk page. I trust you will not be beginning another edit-war over this, in which you were engaged just a little time ago today on a related matter. Since you appear to be a new editor, you are being given some leeway, but it is always best to be quite clear in one's writing. Being demanding in suggesting that another editor should do something in order to appear consistent when there is no reason why that editor was inconsistent in the first place is not a good way to start.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


Im sorry but I have not been involved in an "edit war" which I am assuming means something negative and a slight on me. If you look at the leeds edit history, an editor reverted one of my posts stating it needs citation. I reverted back stating there already was a citation. He then pointed out that a direct source is better. I ammended my edit to include a direct source instead as suggested. This is hardly an "edit war", it is about working together and getting help from other editors.

I'll alter the sentence to read:

Leeds lies near the centre of the West Yorkshire metropolitan county which has a population of 2.2 million (mid-2007 estimate)

...so that my sentence is consistent and reads better than shifting to past and present tense. What do you think? --Razorlax (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Peterborough

Future accusations of edit warring? I reverted changes for which there was no consensus; they were reinstated without discussion, I reverted them again and left a note on the user's talk page. No consensus = no change. Chrisieboy (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. What you are involved in is a content dispute, and, if you look at WP:EDITWAR which I drew both of your attentions to, you will see that what you clearly describe falls under its remit. So, you both need to pay attention to what is happening, though Grumpyguts is in the greater danger.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You do not appear to be particularly impartial, which something I would expect of an administrator. Aside from time wasting, copyright violation and edit warring, GrumpyGuts has engaged in incivil behaviour and, I suspect, sockpuppetry and vandalism; but you jump in accusing me of all sorts. Why is that..? Chrisieboy (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My main issue against you both is that you both appeared to be edit-warring. That is the main issue. It is not an issue of impartiality or not: the conditions for edit-warring are given in the links I already provided, and you should have discussed the matter on Talk:Peterborough where others could be better informed about what was happening. I found your messages on this matter to be somewhat terse almost to the point of being unhelpful, and I think a more open approach would have been helpful, since on the strict interpretation of WP:EDITWAR, both of you were quite close to a 3rr violation which might have caused problems. If you felt GrumpyGuts was adding copyvio images to Peterborough and replacing images that were acceptably licenced, or he had been doing other problematic things, then you would have been better off approaching an admin immediately and discussing very openly what the problems were, and certainly would have been better off if you immediately told me about them when I first posted the first message on Talk:Peterborough. However, as can be seen above, you didn't. I can assure you that if I had been acquainted with these problems of incivility, possible sockpuppetry and vandalism (I assume not the edits on Peterborough), which you tell me about now for the first time, my later messages would have been very different and I hope less unacceptable to you. Instead, you gave neither a hint nor an indication to me about these other problems you were/are having with GrumpyGuts. Now that I know about them, let me know more about the vandalism, and so on, and if it is possible for me to take appropriate action to prevent further disruption by GrumpyGuts, I will do so. The problem is, as I hope you can now see, that I was given no indication of the information that you obviously have about GrumpyGuts, and so your view of what I wrote was unacceptable, whereas, from my perspective, not knowing what you know meant what I was writing was reasonable. Now that we both know more, I hope we can see this as being just a simple misunderstanding and move forwards.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Before Ddstretch intervened, I had noted what appeared to be an edit war in progress on the Peterborough article. Grumpyguts appeared to be implementing WP:BOLD and was blindly reverted by Chrisieboy. (I think the new pictures were a marginal improvement, but that's by the by). The problem occurred when the two of you continued to revert each other without resorting to the talk page. I was tempted to take action myself because of the argument but was pressed for time. Both the pictures are copyright violations, but instead of explaining this to Grumpyguts, Chrisieboy reverted.
Chrisieboy, sockpuppetry is a pretty serious accusation, could you provide evidence? Nev1 (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Blimey, should I expect a rebuke from Jza84 next..? Chrisieboy (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Historic counties of England - Domesday

I've read - but for the moment can't put my hand on the reference - that, when Domesday was compiled, the various land holdings included which were later in Wales were not so much regarded as being within England at the time, but rather were included with the entries for the neighbouring English counties (Ches, Gloucs etc) simply for convenience. That is, they were not "part of" Cheshire etc. in an administrative sense - as they had in most cases already become part of separate marcher lordships - but rather were simply grouped with those counties in the Domesday volumes. Do you have any views or references on that? If that is the case, some of the wording may need to be revised. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll go and check my copy of Harris and Thacker. I think you are correct in that the situation is probably less clear-cut than might be thought, although Atiscross (partly) and Exestan were hidated, which was primarily an English thing, rather than a Welsh-area thing at the time. The problem is that at this distance in time, we don't know the extent to which this was all clouded by political motives and desire to claim ownership as part of a conquest campaign and so on, and different authors writing now may think of it differently depending on many things. The wording could be changed to be more similar to the text which describes the "Inter Ripam et Mersham" case, which is a similar uncertain area of land. Let me check and report back on how Harris and Thacker specifically report it (I was cutting and pasting from other articles I wrote some time ago to make the additions to the Historic counties one).  DDStretch  (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Bucklow (hundred)

I was intending to fill it out a little more, I created it so that I could expand a little on the history of Partington and Carrington. I haven't given it too much thought yet, I seem to have about 5 pages on the go. Getting Worsley to GA is my next target, I get bored with articles after a while of working on them, and switch to other things before returning to finish them. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

reply at your talkpage.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Give me a few days to see what I can see, if there's no activity then feel free. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Oooo that rhymes! Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
You may find this of interest - the Bucklow section is written by Sir Peter Leycester, 1st Baronet Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Unable to locate the comment you made on this page regarding your opinion of Rand

In the last week of December, I believe, or in the first few days of January, you posted a comment here on your talk page expressing your disdain for Rand and your reluctance to get involved. It was locataed just above that comment that CABlankenship posted where he says, "Yes, it's hardly worth it."[3] Perhaps it was archived. I've searched your user contributions, the page history, daily diffs, the archives I located, and I don't know where to look next. Do you have any idea where it went? --Steve (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It was never on this page. I am somewhat surprised that you did not already know this, given that you have repeated an allegation referring back to the message on more than one occasion, and also surprised that it is of sufficient importance in your eyes that you presumably want to use this as evidence against me in the ArbCom case about Ayn Rand. What is the explanation for this curious lapse? In any case, it is here.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I had forgotten where I saw it before, and it isn't that important to me. I am not trying to make a case against you. I do think that despite trying to stay neutral, and wanting to stay neutral, you didn't succeed 100%. Having said that, I don't fault for you the page protections, or for the attempts you did make to stop the edit warring. I think you found yourself caught between not liking Rand, feeling more sympathy for those who don't like Rand, and those who you've edited and worked with before on other pages or incidents... caught between that and the desire to be 100% neutral at a time when it would have been better to avoid even the appearance of partiality. I don't think you saw complaints made to you by 'pro-Rand' faction editors in the same way you saw complaints from anti-rand faction editors. With hind sight, you should have passed the request to an admin who wasn't in that situation. I think another admin would have handled things differently. There were a lot of WP violations going on and some of them were obvious, and some of them were right in front of you. But having tossed out my two cents on what you should have done differently, I haven't filed any complaint, and I don't think your actions need to be addressed by any authority, assuming you agree that it would have been better to pass the admin duties to someone not in your situation and that you agree that there could be at least a tiny whiff of truth to what I'm saying. I'm not out for blood. I'm just tired of being treated like a wild-eyed, crazed cultist by Snowded, Idag, TallNapoleon, et. al. --Steve (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I've just read your remarks on the Ayn Rand article's ArbCom. I'm a little disappointed that you don't believe, with hindsight, that it would have been better to call in an admin without a POV in this area. You have worked on the article as an editor, you had been in communication with Snowded and share interests with him. Don't you think it would have been better to avoid even an appearance of impropriety? --Steve (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:Template-Class WikiProject Cheshire articles

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Template-Class WikiProject Cheshire articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Template-Class WikiProject Cheshire articles has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Template-Class WikiProject Cheshire articles, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ddstretch/Archives/2009/January&oldid=1142548825"