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

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)

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

Sandbach School

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey!

Hey DDStretch,

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

We must speak more often!

Thanks,

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

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

RfA note

Hiya. Just a note but I fixed the end time on your RfA [2] for you. Good luck - I'm sure it wont be needed! Pedro :  Chat  10:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Your RFA

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

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

Bot approved: dabbing help needed

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

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

Your answer...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutral on RFA

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

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

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

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

In re: Your RFA and the above comments

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

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

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

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

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

RfA Question

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

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

Congratulations, you are now an administrator

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What?

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

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

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

WikiProject Good articles newsletter

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

Hello there

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

Admin?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge tag

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

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