User talk:Ddstretch/Archives/2008/October

Matt Lewis
Matt Lewis is incessantly accusing me of being somebody else on the Talk Page, without any evidence. He has repeatedly name called- "Chump" being his last one. Look at the amount of time the guy has spent trying to prove that wikipedia editors are somebody else- hence my OCD remark is based on observation. He has not, and he will not, prove this accusation in my case. Yet he persists in the accusations. He has been warned by other editors, and it has been suggested that he take a break. He does not appear to have taken this advice. Why have you not warned him yet for breaching AGF, for starters? He initiated this, not me. As long as he persists in claiming me to be somebody else I will point out this paranoia, for that is precisely what it is. Tell him to put up or shut up. Dunlavin Green (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Then you *will* be blocked if you carry on. WP:NPA is not a negotiable rule here.  DDStretch    (talk)  14:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wales
I noted your recent revert on the Wales page, and your comments. Did you notice the poor grammar and spelling? Perhaps the Nimbly troll has emigrated from Scotland. Daicaregos (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * May be, or else it is just what passes for a typical standard of spelling and grammar in UK schools today (my son who is Chinese and only been in the UK for 2 years having arrived knowing only Chinese got better results in his English exams than many of his UK-born classmates last summer!) I did notice the poor spelling and grammar, but there's only so much one can put in an edit summary, and sometimes the mistakes are too numerous to list.  DDStretch    (talk)  18:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ironic reference in Return to Na Pali (Unreal)
Just noticed that the Bodega Bay, the ship the prisoner has to evade to escape the planet and end the game, is referred to by her as a "Freeman class cruiser" in the audio of the last log entry screen. Freeman.... hmmm where have I heard that name before? It's a funny little dig at the competition and as such deserves a note, but the page is locked right now. Dongzhongshu (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's because you only just registered today, and after I placed the warning about disruption by an anonymous IP editor edit-warring and threatening to coordinate a spamming campaign against the article. You won't be able to edit it for a few days, and I think you just have to accept that for now, as the threat means that all newly registered editors must be carefully considered with respect to this article. There's no rush. If you think it is important, discuss what you have told me here on the talk page and see if people agree that it is worthy of being added. (By the way, it may have helped if you gave a more informative subject to this section, I was only able to infer it was about Unreal as I was expecting some reaction.)  DDStretch    (talk)  19:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Have done so. OK if you add the information yourself if you wish. I found it funny, since the "Freeman class" Bodega Bay gets ignominiously blown up at the end. But maybe I just like meta too much. Dongzhongshu (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandbach
I was wondering what you thought of Sandbach as an article at the moment. I was thinking that it could possibly be moving towards becoming B-class. Could you have a look please, thanks. 安東尼  TALKies  17:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)  Ps how do I archive my talkpage ?

Vandalism?
Hi DD, I'm a nosey sort of guy. When I see someone involved in something that's of interest to me I tend to look at what they're about, and so it is that I came to look at your edit history and was surprised to see your warning to User:Roichten. I then had a look at what this vandalism was supposed to be (nosiness again, I'm afraid). Whatever this users's edit was, I don't think it was vandalism, and maybe your "one and only warning" was a little heavy handed (?). Maybe the user needs some guidance as to what Wikipedia is all about, and bear in mind he's a new editor (probably). So how about assuming good faith, and most importantly, don't bite the newbies. If, on the other hand, you know that this guy is a sock puppet, then please accept my apologies. MidnightBlue  (Talk)  18:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

How exactly is writing something, that is true considered vandalism?! I am a member of that organization and I don't believe it is right for the system to deny access to publish the truth, example the quote put in place. It was not nonsesne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roichten (talk • contribs) 18:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it was an unsourced piece of negative information about a living purpose. If you can point to a source with the quote, then all well and good - but negative, unsubstatiated information about a living person is considered vandalism and is removed immediately.  Hope that helps Fritzpoll (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I support your action. The comment was potentially libellous and completely out of place on Wikipedia.  This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Newbie or not, this sort of thing has to be nipped in the bud. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you're quite right - almost. Libellous (I don't think so) or not, the actions of Roichten do not warrant a high-handed, rude and aggressive response of the type he received. As I said above, guidance rather than discourtesy is clearly what's required. Fritzpoll, as for this being vandalism, you would do well to study WP:BLP and the policy regarding just what consitutes vandalism (WP:Vandalism). In neither policy will you find any reference to vandalism, other than briefly, in sections not relevant to the current discussion. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  19:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The editor must have known it was personally damaging.; they added it twice, after it was removed once. The warning was valid. I would do it again. It is marginally possible that I was influenced by the extent to which editwarring and disruption by editors involved in the question of whether "British Isles" is included in articles or not is causing problems in many areas, leading to me becoming a little impatient with the kinds of entries added twice that are involved here. But of course, MidnightBlueMan may well know about that, as he is involved in those actions and has been implicitly criticized by me in the arbitration proceedings now taking place in section 4.1 of Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. If the editor had added them once and then stopped after the information had been removed, all well and good, but the editor then added the same infromation immediately again, and, as I stated, if the editor is intelligent enough to know how to add material and then go to this talk page to argue the case, they must have known that the information was damaging and totally unsuitable for any kind of encyclopaedia.   DDStretch    (talk)  21:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the same information had been added just a few days before by an anonymous IP editor here, and so it is quite likely to have been the third attempt to add the same highly damaging personal information the the article in a short period of time. DDStretch   (talk)  21:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What with being on a school article, it's most likely a youngster adding it for a laugh (no offence, youngsters). Sticky Parkin 23:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So it's a good learning experience about what is appropriate in an encyclopedia. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak
Hello, after this post I will be going on a long wiki break till at least next summer. I have a gut feeling I am not in your good books for various reasons, but hopefully when I come back I may ask you to permit me to return to the UK pages. I know I deserved the ban I got from them, I was going through a pretty torrid time of it personally, though I hasten to add it was no excuse for my behaviour. You may not reply to me but if you do your thoughts, positive or negative will be welcome. I would still come back to wiki and continue to edit elsewhere if you said no chance, but it would still be nice to here your thoughts. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, and I'll see you next summer. Cheers! Jack forbes (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Could we please also ask people to respect Verifiability and Reputable sources?
Hi. Most of the problem around the BI related issues is that people won't put verifiable external sources before their own (usually mistaken) preconceptions. This leads to all the grandstanding and name-calling. If admins would insist on people bringing reputable sources to the pages instead of insults then we might get somewhere. Could you do that?79.155.154.185 (talk) 08:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. I've replied on Talk:British Isles in response to your latest response there. Although I have found your argument doesn't hold water, you have basically made a good point about the quality of references and, hence, the reasoning which makes use of them.  DDStretch    (talk)  08:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You have assumed incorrectly how I might propose such text to be written. I would not propose a synthetic text.  I would propose a clear and fully supported text, but would prefer to stay away from the whole political angle.   79.155.154.185 (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, but the argument I made use of which you put in your message is deficient. But thanks for making the points. I agree that the entire political issue is best avoided.  DDStretch    (talk)  08:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that many things can be put together in ways that are either synthetic, or not. I do not propose synthetic texts and the illustrative text I proposed is not a synthesis.  It uses the sources correctly.  However, it's important that we not only avoid synthesis but also that we defend verifiable facts against editors who don't believe them, or who just don't like them.  If arguing against references without supplying counter references was as big a sin on WP as being uncivil then the place would be a lot more civil. Many people on the BI page want to change the definition of the term and to rewrite the article to exclude Ireland, despite the fact that it isn't WP's place to do so.  Others want to hide the fact that the term is controversial, again despite the fact that it is not WP's place to do so.  The only acceptable path, and it's not even a compromise position, is for the article to reflect the sources that we have.  79.155.154.185 (talk) 09:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree entirely with what you write here! That is why it was me who argued for, and got, the large table of relianle sources for the different terms that are used to describe England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales on Countries of the United Kingdom and Subdivisions of the United Kingdom. It is also why I am posting criticisms that may seem stupid at first glance to make the issues become more clear, and to try to provoke people into concentrating more on the arguments deployed rather than the people emitting the arguments (I'm putting it in mechanical terms to try to remove the emotion from it all. The approach is also a standard way of teaching the method of critical thinking in a more tutorial or seminar-based way,and one which I have used successfully in real life when I was teaching this stuff). The more the article merely reflects, in as unmodified a way as possible, the facts, the less drama will be encountered on the article and its talk page. There may be an issue about weight, but a cool, rational approach to that, perhaps calling on an outside arbiter after the sources for and against a position have been assembled, may be a good way forward for that.  DDStretch    (talk)  09:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Glad to see we're agreeing! At least a little. I'm well able to think critically and I've long been pushing that the text reflect as closely as possible the text of the references. My point with the whole nationalist thing is that inserting it without explanation (i) makes it political, where it need not be and (ii) might give the impression that it's a tiny minority issue, whereas reputable sources say exactly the opposite and it's easier to support a majority than a minority. As for the issue of weight, it might be relevant if there was any countervailing argument. So far the only arguments ever given are essentially "I don't believe it", "I don't like it" or "Irish people shouldn't feel that way." 79.155.154.185 (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW - I've recently asked another admin who frequents the BI page whether he had read the references on the /References page. They had not, despite often becoming quite involved on the talk page.  I'll ask you the same question.  Have you read the references?  79.155.154.185 (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick glance at them, but I couldn't say I'd read them in any detailed way to make any comments about their scope or apparent status in terms of good arguments. I'd have to go back and spend time looking at them if I was in the position of trying to get involved more than I am, and until then, I'd have to say that I don't have any view that could be given any weight on the matter.  DDStretch    (talk)  13:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

England
Have you delivered similar messages to the editors who accused me of vandalism - a very serious matter at Wikipedia, as you know - for making entirely factual edits? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because they made the accusations about the edits you made, not about you. Considering the reactions they got from you, it is understandable that they should act a little unwisely as they were provoked. The factual nature of the edits is under discussion, and you are strongly advised to engage in acceptable discussion about it. Please abide by WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL.  DDStretch    (talk)  09:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I made edits in good faith and with no personal comments about anyone. Cremepuff222 immediately accused me of "vandalism," and Snowded supported this accusation. You know how serious an accusation that is at Wikipedia, and you also that my edits were not vandalism. I certainly reacted strongly to this entirely unjustified attack on my motives and integrity as an editor, as anyone would. It is outrageous that I am now being censured while they are not. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your claim that you made "no personal comments about anyone" is obviously false, as shown in the quoted passages I gave you on your talk page. The only outrage that should appear here is about the aggressive manner in which you are pursuing the changes you wish to make to England: they may be valid changes, but wikipedia lays great store on the manner in which people conduct themselves. I now consider this matter closed unless you indulge in other behaviour that contravenes wikipedia's policies on no personal attacks and edit-warring again. If you feel aggrieved about this, I recommend you take the matter to wikiquette alerts where you can get others to view the actions.  DDStretch    (talk)  11:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To be absolutely clear here. Here are the comments that I quoted in my initial message tyo you on your talk page:
 * "Who do you think you are, reverting these edits, which are entirely factual? Obviopusly you know nothing whatever about British history or you would see that I am completely correct."(Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)),
 * "How dare you characterise my edits as 'unconstructive' and 'vandalism'? Who the hell are you to make such comments? If you don't know anything about this subject, as is evidently the case, butt out and leave it to those of us who do."(Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)), both of these on User talk:Cremepuff222, and this quote:
 * "You are obviously just as ignorant as the other editor who tried to revert me." (Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)) on User talk:Snowded.
 * I think that this settles the matter of personalised comments and an aggressive reaction to others. So, let us have no more of this nonsense.  DDStretch    (talk)  11:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Above I said: "I made edits in good faith and with no personal comments about anyone." That is a true statement. The comments you have quoted were made subsequently, in response to having my edits reverted and being accused of vandalism. Either you have been very careless in your description of what was said, or you have deliberately misrepresented me. In either case, you have falsely represented what I said ("Your claim that you made "no personal comments about anyone" is obviously false"), and have in effect accused me of lying. You owe me an apology. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, you omit the fact that I was specifically commenting on the remarks you made on the talk pages, and made it perfectly clear that these were the remarks in question. Your response smacks of sophistry, and if you persist you may well get blocked. This conversation is over. Do not respond on this talk page again, and if you wish to pursue the matter, take the advice I gave previously. I note that in your edit history, you have previously made edits that other editors have labelled as being uncivil and personal attacks upon other editors. You need to reassess your attitude and style here. No more!  DDStretch    (talk)  14:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The template you've added at Talk:England links specifically to the Wales debate. Is there a specifically England debate in the archive which would form a better link? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure. I did it quickly as a stop-gap. I think that was teh centralised debate. May be it should be moved to a more appropriate place? What do you suggest we do?  DDStretch    (talk)  09:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seek other views? I (thankfully) haven't engaged enough in the debate to know what is archived. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hiya Dd, I wonder if it's possible to persuade England to create its own devolved government. I suppose not, oh well. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt that the English could be persuaded to fork out untold millions of quid to create something that they've already got. ðarkun coll 17:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This lot never got very far, because in the real world most people have far more important issues to worry about. Unlike here, obviously.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh well, had the UK Parliament been located in Scotland (via Scotland having forced union on England) - England (I suppose) would've had a devolved government (where's Scotland wouldn't). Just to be on the safe side, let's not bring this discussion to Scotland article. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

BITASK
On a related topic. You may need to extend your civility and references patrol to the BITASK page. So far I've been called a troll and told that "I am not long for this place", which reads rather aggressively to me. [] and []. Oh, the reason for these accusations is apparently that I'm arguing that we use the OED definition as the basis for the guideline on where to use the term "British Isles". 79.155.154.185 (talk) 10:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion. I am rather reluctant to re-engage with that topic, as I was heavily involved a while back, but got accused, along with others, and unfairly in my opinion, as pushing a "nationalist position" for trying to encourage people to do just what I am suggesting here, and also for taking a stern approach to disruption. I recall it was the same person you say is causing problems for you. The circumstances and real life issues that were impinging on me at that time meant it was safer for me to just disengage from it all together. I am not sure that me re-joining there would be useful, as it may well be that I was quickly assumed to be prone to push the same "nationalist position", which I deny I am, but which may well bring about more problems. So, probably not good for wikipedia in that respect.  DDStretch    (talk)  11:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Any suggestions then - apart from letting the lunatics rule the asylum (figuratively speaking)? 79.155.154.185 (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I suggest that someone who takes no active part in either side involved begins to concentrate on merely the arguments and the quality of the references that are being offered up to advance certain positions or courses of action. You need someone who knows a bit about critical thinking and rationality, and who can divorce their own personal opinions (which will often be biased and prone to prejudice, even if they deny vehemently that they are) from the whole matter. I'll take a look around and see if anyone springs to mind. It would be best if it was neither a UK person nor an Irish person, and preferably someone who has little or no connection with either of those (such as a close UK commonwealth country). But I agree that something probably needs to be done.  DDStretch    (talk)  11:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do find someone suitable. It is just so tedious being in situations like now, where I'm quoting OED and being told that I'm a troll for doing so.  I've asked two admins and both have said, essentially, "No, I can't face dealing with that lot again". 79.155.154.185 (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It does seem rather unwise to hurl the label "troll" around just on the basis of someone quoting such a reputable source as the OED as a basis for the meaning of a term. Perhaps a question posed to Wikiquette Alerts might help? I am sure that the editor thinks he is only protecting good work on wikipedia, but as Nietzsche wrote in "Beyond Good and Evil" (I paraphrase) "Be careful when you battle with monsters, in case you thereby become a monster too; and if you gaze too long into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you." (Sorry I don't normally indulge in quotes, but a few seem particularly apt in this area to me at the moment.) I couldn't really get involved myself, as I am sure I would be seen as too involved by others (and I already got my fingers burnt quite badly tackling what I saw as disruption by another rather assertive editor in this debate who is adding "British Isles" to many articles in an almost defiant manner.)  DDStretch    (talk)  13:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I studied technology/science. Philosophy is mostly guff to me.  Actually it's mostly sloppy thinking meaningless guff to me.  I read philosophy and they're asking all the wrong questions, then answering them badly too.  After all, philosophy started out as natural philosophy but then it evolved into science.  Most "philosophers" of the last two millennia simply never actually became scientists.  They got left behind.  As for the insertions, I think I know who you mean.  79.155.154.185 (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I also trained, and lectured, in scientific subjects involving a high level of advanced and applied mathematics in a subject bedevilled with sloppy, sometimes anti-mathematical thinking. (One leading researcher in the field once tried to dismiss a mathematical inconsistency in one of their theories which I had uncovered by attempting to imply that they were doing psychology, and my criticism was mathematical, and, hence, irrelevant. This is discussed in my PhD thesis, which was considered excellent by the examiners.) I do know what you mean in your comments about philosophy, but that doesn't mean all of it is rubbish, though one must be highly selective: The philosopher I admire the most is Karl Popper, whereas Nietzsche (who I used above) I think is greatly over-rated. The philosophy I think best is that where the philosophers had a close and enduring relationship with active scientists, and that comes down to Karl Popper and the areas of pilosophy of science and epistemology when it is applied to practical problems. I was always being attacked by people who knew little about what I was researching for being "too rigorous", by which they meant that I was critical, rather than adulatory, about their own work.  DDStretch    (talk)  15:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) Have you seen the papers that physicists got published in a philosophical journal? It was a total "piss-take" and still got published. It was fantastic stuff. Even after they exposed the whole thing as satire the philosophors kept insisting that they had some valid points. I confess I have not read Popper, but I'm almost sure that one could use what'shisname's argument that no mathematical system can be perfect to somehow sophistically support your "leading researcher"'s complaint that a mathematical problem in their theories was irrelevant. Godel, was it? I'll try to see if I can find a link to the satirical article. No guarantees. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I know it well. I have a book about the whole affair. The main author was Alan Sokal, the article was ""Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", and an account of it can be found in The Sokal Affair. It was a brilliant move, in my opinion. I have a book: "Intellectual Impostures" that describes the affair from the point of view of Alan Sokal. It is a good read. When I was an undergraduate, back in 1973 (it was) I and a friend did something similar with some OTT pretentious poetry enthusiasts at our university: we constructed almost random English passages using some ideas of "approximation to English" text by two researchers, Miller and Selfridge (see here for a very summarized basic description of it as a PDF extract). We used "A concept of Mind" by Gilbert Ryle as the source for English prose to devise the passages, and applied a rule about syllable length of each line of verse, but apart from that it was effectively automatic. I recall the first two lines of the "poetry" we wrote were "There is a body and a body and a mind. And the differences are the things between." The people raved over it, saying it was very good work and showed great depth and symbolic meaning. They were not pleased at all when we declined an appearence at a poetry reading to read the poem, and told them of our oax. Some tried to argue that it really was good poetry. Oh well... As for the attempt to argue from Godel, I think that appeal would be seen as basically flawed by any real critical thinker: If Godel applies, it would also apply to the logical models that underlie argument that his discovery applied to what I was concerned with, and so it would be self-defeating. In any case, the inconsistency was a rather more simpler matter: The theory predicted that certain things would be seen with various probabilities. If one added up the probabilities of mutually independent and exhaustive possibilities (which they hadn't done, but which I did for a wide range of cases they described, as well as doing it analytically using algebraic arguments, then the standard laws of probability (the probability axioms of Kolmogorov and of Cox) state that the sum of these probabilities must equal 1.0, but in this theory, they didn't: they were effectively guaranteed to sum to anything other than 1.0. This had all sorts of inadvisable consequences, and to evade the issue by claiming some kind of "special exemption" from the probability axioms would not be sustainable on critical examination. Another set of theoreticians proposed another theory where the predicted probabilities of all independent and exhaustive events the theory covered were routinely less than 1.0. They did admit some problems when I pointed this out, and did revise the model later, however, to take into account this blunder in the way I recommended. We aren't talking about third rate scientists here: one at least has a wikiepdia article about him and certainly has an international reputation.  DDStretch    (talk)  17:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I think there was another one more recently than the Sokal case, more specifically aimed at philosophy rather than social studies. I'll have to ask my brother, he reads this stuff more than me.  As for using Godel (whose name I always mix up with Euler, for heaven's sake - those funny vowels or something) it would have to be sophistry and not a real argument.  On you probability case, the key issue in adding up to 1.0 is typically the inclusion of the event "Other", e.g. either A, or B, or C, or some other outcome.  It's usually (in my almost certainly less extensive experience) a definitional oversight.  Anyway, good weekend.     79.155.154.185 (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * More seriously. Any luck finding a suitable admin?  79.155.154.185 (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Delinking dates in references - UK
Your post to United Kingdom says the access date style has changed from this. Would you mind providing a link to the suggested style change please? All the reference access dates on the pages I've created are in year-month-day format. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. My understanding comes from various comments about what criticisms are being made at FAR for featured article nominations, where the routine linking of dates in references is, I understand, a point of specific criticism of nominated articles. User:Malleus Fatuorum would be the person to contact (as I've directed a previous comment about this to him), as he has been heavily involved in the FA process. Additionally, the updated relevant sections about overlinking and dates in WP:MOSNUM and WP:Overlink contain information which points out that routine linking of years and dates is now not viewed as being a good thing. For the recommended change in formatting, the main one to engage in is this when one is writing references using the various cite templates:


 * where before one would use "|accessdate=2008-10-20", say, now one can use "|accessdaymonth=20 October|accessyear=2008", and
 * where before one would use "|date=2008-10-20", now one can use "|daymonth=20 October|year=2008".
 * There may be other solutions, but those are the ones I have been using which seem to make no change to the arrangement of dates in references, but which avoid the linking of them. Does that answer the question you asked? As far as I know, it is not policy, but I am acting so as to not put unnecessary obstacles to an article's progress on the assessment ladder by avoiding linking dates, and removing them when I see them on articles that people have suggested should be edited to allow them to achieve a higher assessment level. I hope that helps.  DDStretch    (talk)  07:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Aye, thanks for replying. It wasn't the date overlinking (not something I'm guilty of, thank goodness), rather than the style of access date, I was unsure of. I note you say that now you can use "|accessdaymonth=20 October|accessyear=2008". I'm still not sure if it's just an option or if it is the preferred style. I've left a message on User:Malleus Fatuorum's talk page, so I'll wait to see what he says. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It probably needs to be changed to be more clear in the documentation for the citation styles, no matter what, so sorting out the status of any change (requirement or guideline) would be a good idea. I'm trying to write new references avoiding the linking of dates, and then trying to change all references to be consistent on articles people have noted should be moved to Good Article or higher status. It would help immensely if there were some more clear statement of this somewhere, however, as I feel I'm somewhat "flying in the dark" otherwise.  DDStretch    (talk)  08:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, ddstretch. Perhaps we've started the ball rolling. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * May be, but the image of someone wading through treacle, or wading through setting quick-set concrete keeps on interrupting the thought of a ball rolling....  DDStretch    (talk)  09:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

So I Can't Edit My Page
I noticed you blocked for another 24 hours just because I blanked my own page. Are you saying I can't edit my own page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=74.197.86.10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.86.10 (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not for the allocated amount of time, because you were disrupting the page by removing block notices and informative notices about where the IP address was located. And you did that on more than one occasion. So, for that amount of time, yes, I am. Now learn to conform to the principles of wikipedia, and things like that won't happen again. Please also do not subvert a block by editing from a different account, even an anonymous account, as that may mean the block gets extended further, and you should also have placed this talk-page comment at the end of the page.  DDStretch    (talk)  21:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What if I want my IP adress to be private?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=74.197.86.10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.86.10 (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that you don't want others to read the messages left on the talk page? Or what?  DDStretch    (talk)  22:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Useful link
Thanks for that! I had spotted some issues for concern from their block log. Probably why I'm being a little sterner than usual at the relevant talk page. :S

The whole issue of naming for parts of the British Isles is so thorny it's almost impossible not to get pricked, however, if more users would just appreciate the fact that there is no single answer, but a variety of perspectives, we'd be onto a winner I think. --Jza84 | Talk  23:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I entirely agree. It is one reason why I prompted the start of the table of reliable sources for E/NI/S/W, and I think that basic approach (tables giving the variety of terms or whatever for the relevant articles) could usefully be implemented and defuse a lot of the hot air that is wasting all our time here, as it is more often than not, completely unproductive. I think a much more stringent approach to the function of talk pages would also help (I wrote about doing that on the Arbitration Discussion about TharkunColl and HighKing and "British Isles")  DDStretch    (talk)  23:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I thank you for being a voice of sanity in an insane world, but you've got more important things to worry about than me. I'm a hopeless case. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. To be honest, I'm despairing of wikipedia, and, although it may well pass, if it does, my level of engagement with it may well diminish, because I am getting more than fed up with the extent to which being reasonable is being thrown out of the window to a slavish and unthinking application of rules (and that doesn't even make any comment about whether the rules are actually correctly being interpreted.) The whole British/Irish morass of bitching and continual mud-slinging makes me think that deleting all involved articles and starting again, with all editors involved in the mudslinging banned from future involvement in the new articles may be an option worth considering. Of course, I expect my shadow to be along soon to express outrage at such a view. (see User talk:Snowded for a recent example of this, and I certainly don't mean Snowded.) Of course, this is me just venting some frustration.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I know exactly how you feel. I battled with one of these zealots earlier this year over Manchester Martyrs, an article that is still poor, but at least not the political statement that it was originally. It's really not an edifying or inspiring experience. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * At least I got a new nickname for a group of editors out of it all: Rent-a-Froth.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Snowden is getting pretty fed up as well, having been engaged in an intensive few days for work/travel its been fairly depressing to see some of the exchanges around all of this. The use of tags to disrupt articles, throwing wiki procedures around, gaming multiple addresses and naive admins; its really depressing. "Rent a froth" cheered me up a bit though.  -- Snowded   TALK  22:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that regretting a choice of words can be a clever phrase. If somebody says that they regret causing offence to a person, they can be seen as apologising, or at least offering a limited apology. If somebody merely says that they regret a choice of words, it can mean (for example) they regret the scrutiny it produced. Given the conversations I have been active in you will understand perhaps why I don't think regret is apt here. An apology is categorically refused. It has not even been said "I am sorry, perhaps it would have been better if I had followed point 4, but I felt the article wasn't going to make it" Rather the responses have been bullish. While we are talking about regret, I regret that you feel a mass deleting of articles is in order. Glad to see an unbiased wikipedian in action.--ZincBelief (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, I'm really not interested in discussing this any further with you, as I have said what needs to be said. I do note, however, that you have now moved onto my talk page after I made comments about your behaviour on Wikiquette Alerts, and have then started to make comments about my own contributions on this page, which may be an attempt to engage me in some dispute. I don't want this; believe me, you don't want this, and so please do not contribute to this page again.  DDStretch    (talk)  00:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: How to reply to editor changing article details from Cheshire to Lancashire
No problem at all. The exact policy (and it is a policy owing to it being a formal naming convention) is at PLACE. We also have follow on conventions at WP:UKCITIES, WP:UKCOUNTIES and Naming_conventions_(settlements).

Important lines you or I could quote to this user include:


 * "We should use the current, administrative, county. E.g. Eton is in Berkshire, not Buckinghamshire."
 * "Metropolitan counties should be treated as counties - the fact that they no longer have councils has no relevance on their legal status."
 * "This approach is consistent with most local and national government literature, some private sector literature, will be familiar to most readers and writers, and indeed the approach will apply even if boundaries change again. It is also easy for people to find out where a particular village is, as maps with administrative boundaries are freely available online.... It is also consistent with other encyclopedias such as the 1911 Encyclopedia, which specifically calls Cromarty a 'former county'."

Does that help? I'll try and take a look at this. Note too that the Association of British Counties is not a reliable source on the matter - it has been proven with some certainty that they have misquotations and misappropriations of certain statements. --Jza84 | Talk  19:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the information. I'll sleep on it and may be respond in the morning, and if you feel at all moved to respond, please feel free to do so as well. Thanks.  DDStretch    (talk)  20:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd just revert the stuff per normal "uncited" protocol. I'll be happy to warn them and block if the disruption continues beyond that.


 * According to Google, our Shaw Hampton doesn't appear as a councillor for Woolston, however this seems to show that they a) can't spell "council", b) have an obsession with Old Billy, and c) have referred to the archaic county system before, in a petition. :)


 * I'll put some of the affected articles on my watchlist. Hope that helps, --Jza84 | Talk  20:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree 100%. In my experience this does usually comes in waves. I think what happens is that ABC sends out newsletters to its members, possibly prompting them to have a look at Wikipedia. We also have a couple of socks around of course too. User:Owain is Owain Vaughn - a senior member (if not the head) of ABC, so they're active here. I've warned him in the past of WP:COI. I'm not going down the route of negotiation on this, it's been done to death and we have enough lines of policy to tackle this issue adequately. Acts of disruption will be treated in the same sense as anyother as far as I'm concerned. Tough and brutal perhaps, but I've spent enough time (like yourself) writing good articles not to become gaurdians against disgruntled pressure groups who seek to disrupt them to further their aim. :) --Jza84 | Talk  13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Special:Contributions/Mister_Flash and User talk:Mister Flash are likely to be of interest. :) --Jza84 | Talk  13:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Depressing. I think G3 might also have applied to the talk page: "This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism." under the "blatant and obvious misinformation", which would have had the effect of encouraging a new editor to break the guidelines and policies we have.  DDStretch    (talk)  14:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you paraphrase that to a couple of visitors to my talk page at User_talk:Jza84? I would be very grateful. Thanks DDStretch. :) --Jza84 | Talk  17:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The specific case aside, G3 does not apply to a user's comment on a talk page. That's a serious stretch of policy, and one I don't believe could withstand scrutiny. If I create the article Allen J. Peters and claim at length that he was the 23rd President of the United States, that would be "blatant and obvious misinformation"; a user's misinterpretation of policy or poor advice is not. - auburn pilot   talk  19:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Radcliffe, Greater Manchester
Good point I hadn't seen that. My concern was that the change of status for Bury detracted slightly from Radcliffe, which is why I made it a footnote. It was a quick 5 minute edit so feel free to change it back if you think it works better the other way :)

I'm looking at old maps right now and the turnpike roads are clearly shown. There is a great deal of history for the town, enough for FAC in my opinion, so I'm filling out the industry side of things. It would be lovely if you could contribute anything to that, or the sections on governance which I'm pretty much clueless about :) Right now I'm looking for things on the Turnpike road, the Roman road, the tram system (pre-metrolink).  I've only just started so I haven't got down to the library yet. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look. As it happens, I've been asked to investigate the Turnpike system for Cheshire by "The Milestone Society" (which is interested in milestones and mileposts, fingerposts, and turnpikes etc in the early road systems), and I'm hoping to get some information from Cheshire Record Office about them. I do know that there is information about turnpikes in the Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society, which I'm trying to access, and there are a couple of books which may contain some information which I'm to have access to shortly (try searching for "Turnpike" on amazon to get a list of titles that may be worth looking for in the library). If I see anything of relevance to Radcliffe, I'll let you know.  DDStretch    (talk)  19:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Manchester wiki
A user has requested that a link to a new Manchester wiki be placed in the external links section of the Manchester article. My instinct is to keep the link out (maybe I just don't want WP:GM to have more competition!), but I can't think of a good reason (I don't think advertising applies here, although I can see this new wiki getting packed with articles of advertisement). How was the Chester wiki dealt with? The case is different as the Manchester wiki isn't being pushed onto every page to do with Manchester, but I'd appreciate your opinion. Nev1 (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It was allowed after acrimonious debate that still occasionally surfaces as a special case only on one article: Chester. The real reason was that the standard of content wasn't up to the standard that would be expected of reliable sources, and on that basis, it should not occur at all in any article. This was what prompted the angry reaction, with people saying that wikipedia was incorrect, and that the content of the Chester wiki was better (even though little of it was at that time referenced and so it was technically of unknown value, except on someone else's day so which wasn't publically capable of being scrutinised.) I do not think the Chester wiki could or should be used as a precedent, and there is still scope for it to be simply removed from all articles. One needs to look at the content, and decide whether the standard criteria for ELs based on what the gudelines and policies state, suggest. If in doubt, I would remove and let those who want to include it do the justrifying, as the burden of proof clearly rests with them.  DDStretch    (talk)  12:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

British Isles
Hello Ddstretch. I salute your bravery, in unprotecting that article. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you need to read Snowded's talk page to see that I have had a setback at the hands of MBM and an admin. I'm not sure there was any option given that, for someone who was only registered on 30 September, MBM seems to be extraordinarily knowledgeable of wikipedia policies.  DDStretch    (talk)  21:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's gotta be the new generation. I've been here (at Wikipedia) for 5-years & I still don't know all the rules & policies. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's certainly possible (the new generation), given that I must be the next-but-one older than they are. I was intermittent for about two years, some of the time as an unregistered user, then 3.5 years rather more intensely. I must say, the enjoyment of it is fast fading, given the extent to which unnecessary drama and suchlike is occurring.  DDStretch    (talk)  21:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You did what you could Ddstretch, fair play. Probably best to just sit back and watch the carnage now. Should be quite a spectacle. Enjoy, if you can. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear - the fact that I registered on 30th September is totally irrelevant. If you look at Snowded's talk page, or maybe Talk:British Isles (can't remember quite where) you'll see that I registered on that date, at his request, after having previously been an unregistered editor for some time, I think since about 2005, on and off. So yes, I am familiar with Wikipedia and many of its policies, including WP:AGF, which you (and just about every other editor) may care to revise :) Having been an unregistered editor, as you have been, I appeciate the value that they bring to Wikipedia, though some can be a menace, of course. I must say that discrimination against IPs is very high generally at Wikipedia and there's a definite unwritten policy to SP all important articles by stealth. This is another reason why I finally "came out"; it was getting increasingly difficult to edit as an IP. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  13:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like you might have to re-protect it (SP), unfortunately. It really does attract the idiots. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  17:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheshire Cat
There are lots of references on the internet to the comparison between Tony Blair and a Cheshire Cat, both in connection with his grin, and how he was known for "disappearing". I don't know which would be a suitable reference here. Could you possibly have a look at them via Google and advise if any are suitable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.102.209 (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are uncertain, then you could look for them yourself, and list them on the talk page of the artucle and see what others think. It is always better to get a range of views under these circumstances. Perhaps, however, the view might be that none of them are suitable, and you should be prepared for this. Such is the way wikipedia works.   DDStretch    (talk)  09:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)