User talk:Ddstretch/Archives/2009/February

Leeds--how to move forward?
Hi, I strongly feel that we need to move beyond bickering at the Leeds articles. The debate here has, in one form or another, continued for over five years. It seems that this time there might be momentum to come up with a decent compromise, but so far every attempt degenerates back to bickering and point scoring. You seem particularly able to rise above that, so my question for you is, what now? I felt that your suggestion for a compromise allowed for an article in which all aspects of the problem could be addressed, and so I am saddened that it was not given a chance to develop into what it could have been. I am racking my brains for an alternate route to compromise, moving articles around and leaving the page at Leeds as a disambiguation is something that I would live with, but it seems to me like the sort of solution in which everyone loses, and I would prefer one in which everyone wins. —Jeremy (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand arbitration evidence
Please make note of the message posted on the evidence talk page regarding the need for supporting evidence. This is a general courtesy note being left for all editors who have submitted evidence in the case. Be well, --Vassyana (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Crewe
I've finally got the Manchester Mark 1 to GAN, so I'm looking to make a start on Crewe. It looks in even worse shape than I remember it ... :-( --Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Tell me about it. I did the "origins of the name" bit a week ago, and have been wondering how best to try to deal with the rest. My initial idea is that the lead should be the last thing addressed (as it should be a brief summary of the rest, which we haven't sorted out yet). I can do the history up to the start of the railway or a bit beyond if you like, or if you have a strong desire to do that bit, then that's all right. Do you have any of the book sources I mentioned? They do contain a bit about each section (including geographical stuff, such as soil type, etc): Crewe used to be looked upon as a very god place for making Cheshire Cheese, and that has certianly been swamped and been made extinct by the railways.  DDStretch    (talk)  23:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I still need to search for sources, so if you can tackle the History with what you have that's fine by me. I'm a bit freaked out by the lists of schools. We tackled that in GM by having separate List of schools in ... articles. Would you foresee any objection to a similar List of schools in Cheshire? Same for churches, although from what I recall Crewe is a pretty Godless place. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see there's already a List of schools in Cheshire, if I can manage to type the article's name correctly. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (c/e) The "List of churches in Cheshire" article exists, divided up by deaneries, thougbh work could be done to make the settlements the churches are in more clear (perhaps by putting them into separate sortable tables.) I think we've generally held off on the schools, apart from a massive template that should be on the project pages somewhere: vandalism of the school articles is chronic for Cheshire, and we discussed the idea of having separate articles that dealt with education in each local government district, thus reducing the number of articles that could be targetted a bit. I think you can see a result in Secondary education in the Borough of Halton. I think we should remove the long lists as much as possible, however.  DDStretch    (talk)  23:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm already beginning to feel a bit more sanguine about this article; the nasty list of schools has gone, along with the citation tag graffiti. It's still looking like a big job though ... --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree it is a big job, and I got waylaid by spin-offs from the previous day's problems IRL. Thanks for sorting out the web-citation using the citation template: for some reason, I just carried on using cite web for those (I think because no examples were given in the documentation for citation, which is a bit pathetic on my part, I guess.) I'm going to have to deal with the origins of the Coppenhall names, since they won't appear anywhere else in any other articles as far as I can see at the moment, and I'll do that and deal with pre-railway history starting tomorrow. I'll also beef up information about governance and its history unless you get there before me. What sources do you have for the railway history? (I spent part of today correcting errors on Crewe railway station, and that involved dealing with some disruptive use of a template, some side-effects of which you can see on this page.)  DDStretch    (talk)  23:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My only sources for the railway history as yet as what my grandfather, who was a millwright in Crewe works all of his working life, told me. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha! A bit like my source for what some of the apparently disused railway buildings near the station were used for (my father told me about them as they were all near the sorting office). If you can get hold of the two Crewe history books, they do contain a fair bit of information, and the "Made in Crewe: 150 years of engineering excellence" book by Keith Langston is very useful, though it is more like a thick magazine special issue.  DDStretch    (talk)  23:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Major UK stations
I do not appreciate your hostile approach to the matter and to me. I put that template there in good faith believing it was the way to do it, only to learn it wasn't when you so aggressively pointed it out. I would also like you to highlight when I supposedly threatened anyone and why it isn't hypocritical of yourself considering you're threatening me on my talk page, instead of assuming good faith. If you'd like to read the talk page of the article in question. You'll see I've been dealing with an editor who has also been hostile (also on my talk page) whereas I've tried to keep things civil, and I suggest you do the same. Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I am sure you do not like it, as people often do not like their mistakes to be pointed out. The threats are included in the edit summaries you made to good faith reverts by an editor who merely disagreed with your actions here and here. Your accusation that my strong warnings to you were threats, given the disruption you caused is specious. Your accusation of hypocrisy is again a personal attack when the message was a quite legitimate formal warning about your demonstrably poor behaviour in this respect. Given that you have already received two blocks for edit warring in the past, I would have thought it only sensible for you to take steps to acquaint yourself with the rules (especially since you have been an active editor for over a year), and if you read WP:RM carefully, you will see exactly what the steps are you should have done: for instance, it is clearly stated that the template you added to the main template page should have gone on the talk page. In case you do not read it again, I reproduce the salient matters below:"Please follow all three steps listed below when requesting a move...Step 1 — Add move template to talk page...Step 3 — Add the request to the 'Other proposals' list on this page" Thank you for your suggestion about me being civil, and I suggest you review WP:CIVIL and learn to distinguish between a formal warning which might be disliked, and real incivility. You can also learn to distinguish between good faith disagreements and reverts and vandalism, because an unfair accusation of vandalism is itself a personal attack. If you have an issue with that editor, you should have taken outside advice, or stayed away from the article for a while. As it was, labelling them unfairly as being a vandal certainly warranted the stern warning I gave you in its own right.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would welcome any mistake that I have made to be pointed out, but in a civil manner and tone, not an aggressive and sarcastic one, especially since you are an administrator. I would like you to know that those edits were not in good faith as that editor and I have been in a discussion about them beforehand. I requested comment on the removal of the Belfast stations on the talk page as you will note. When little response came, I removed them from the template. The editor (Hammersfan) then reverted my actions. I admit that I misread WP:RM but as an administrator, I felt that you did not assume good faith at all and your warning was inappropriate regarding that matter. I also admit that I was wrong in making an unfair statement about what vandalism is, but I did not directly accuse the editor of vandalism as you'll see on the history. Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest you act more appropriately in future, and realise that retaliating in the way you did is not appropriate. Now, can we stop this outraged bluster and get on with sensible editing and work on wikipedia?. You behaviour does not stand up well on close scrutiny: there was the issue of the lists of people on your user page that was clearly not a good faith matter previously. Now, I suggest that instead of perpetuating thjis sense of outrage, you go away and look deeply and carefully at your actions, and see that to have done the matters you did, with more than a year's experience, certainly justified the stern warnings I issued. This is the end of the matter.  DDStretch    (talk)  14:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have raised the matter on Wikiquette alerts. As for as I'm concerned there was no need for a hostile approach to the matter and I don't believe administrators should act in such a way. Welshleprechaun (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent WQA
I'd like to take a few moments to personally thank you for your patient and considerate participation in the recent WQA. As an editor that takes an active role in dispute mediation and resolution, I firmly believe that the positive, constructive and respectful participation of all parties concerned goes a long way towards not only quick resolution, but the growth of the community as a whole!

The one thing that DID catch my attention is that User:Welshleprechaun had been blocked twice for this same reason, almost exactly one year ago. Understand that I am an "outside-the-box" thinker, and notice things that other people sometimes take for granted. I have to ask myself what some of the other contributing factors for this might be, and how to address and offset these factors...

Once again, the best of wishes and salutations, with my hopes that your Wiki endeavours are met with success! Edit Centric (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. I also noticed the blocks and the relative timing of them. It did make me wonder, since I am a professional in the area of human behaviour, though I quickly realised that any speculation would remain that, and it would certainly not be helpful to express any ideas on wikipedia about it. It would be good if the matter could be more fully resolved, but I think we are probably limited in what can be done, apart from the guidance we try to offer when we are trying and succeeding to be calm and collected (though I know I sometimes fail in this respect.) Once again, thanks.  DDStretch    (talk)  19:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Too funny! About the most determinedly polite person I've ever come across on wikipedia taken to WQA. Has the world gone crazy? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Try looking for references yourself sometime
On the "sovereign state" issue, it would have taken you all of 30 seconds to find constitutional documents, law cases, speeches by State governors, reports in the serious press, etc., that showed that what I was saying was supported by reference. How can you be too lazy to spend 30 seconds finding stuff and not too lazy to assume bad faith and to write insulting nonsense about it. You should be ashamed. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your "warning" on my page is guff. My comment here is reasonable and not a personal attack. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is given in WP:BURDEN. No amount of insults or accusations that others are lazy will create a "special case" for ignoring it, neither will labelling the observation that you have proved resistant to supplying such evidence for backing up your claims as "ludicrous" or "shameful" (on Talk:British Isles here). That there has been resistance is obviously confirmed by the comments, above, as well as a number of attempts to gain evience for similar claims made on Talk:United Kingdom. DDStretch   (talk)  10:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Comment's on Snowded's page
I take your point concerning my comment on Snowded's page. On retrospect it might not have been a good idea as it may only stir thing's up further. I shall remove my post and avoid making any further comments. Thank's for the advice. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

IECOLL
I'm sorry that my harsh words gave you the impression that you were not wanted there; that was certainly not my intention. I also did not realize that you were the same editor who had brought up the Mk II procedure there, which I think is a very helpful proposal. So far, the only reaction I got to this was someone saying "Sebastian, it would be really great if you were to get DDstretch back on board.", and nobody said they were happy to see you leave. So, can I ask you to come back, please? &mdash; Sebastian 21:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please also see my reaction in context. It came at the culmination of a shower of pessimistic messages, many of which had in common that they ignored my main point. Of course, that does not excuse my reaction to you: What others did before you is not your fault; and I don't believe it's good to be harsh with people on their first (correctable) mistake. &mdash; Sebastian 09:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in replying: I have been trying to re-arrange my schedule of commitments. I have recently had a number of unexpected real-life commitments placed upon me, and so availble time is short. I have, however, re-added my name to the mediation attempts, though I can't guarantee the degree to my involvement on it yet. Thanks for the apology: I quite understand the context in which you posted the remarks, and I sympathize with them, having been in similar situations myself in the past. I am sorry for delaying this reply.  DDStretch    (talk)  09:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Counties of Britain
I noticed your comments on the Counties of Britain proposal, and think you may have misunderstood the shorthand the proposer was using. If you follow the link to the Naming Convention, everything you mention about "ceremonial counties" is still covered. He/she is correct in saying that the current (and proposed) guidance reads to use administrative counties. Unfortunately, they cut off the quote at "except". It's that "except" which goes on to talk about "ceremonial counties" where unitary authorities have been carved out of the administrative counties. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The term "Administrative County" is a technical one that is used to describe what the ancient counties became in 1894. They existed until 1974, whereupon the counties became a mixture of Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Counties. The Unitary Authorities make the description of the structure more complex. I'll take a look and see what is really said, but my main concern is to give those editors and activists who continually push the idea that the pre-1974 county boundaries are still in existence no leeway in making settlement articles highly confusing to the general reader in not describing the current state of affairs.  DDStretch    (talk)  12:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I know just what you mean! However, I don't think it's a worry in this case - the wording doesn't change and it uses specific examples to rule out your fears. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok then. No problem.  DDStretch    (talk)  09:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Rand
Interesting set of proposals that you are developing! Do you intend to address the question of evidence? Its the most important thing and without something in place its just not worth editing the article. -- Snowded  TALK  14:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to, but I think Arbcom will baulk at doing that about content in this instance. I'm unsure whether I have the motivation to do that much, since I'm not sure how much of this would be adopted anyway. If Arbcom start to make decisions, then I may be moved to do more.  DDStretch    (talk)  14:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not expect them to determine the content issues per se. However there needs to be some process to (i) assess evidence (the number of Randian web sites and books used compared with independent sources)and (ii) determine the question of negative evidence.  Some sort of guidance there and the 1RR restriction (if tag teaming is covered) might just make the difference.  -- Snowded   TALK  15:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Randian websites and books versus--anti-Randian websites and books? use your own mind ddstretchBrushcherry (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

DDStretch, you are clearly taking a partisan position on the ArbCom page (you find no fault with anyone but Kjaer and me), but I guess that is your right and your choice, even if it isn't logically defensible. Your last 'evidence' post, for example, is a prime example. You said my post on the Ayn Rand talk page about SmashTheState was unsigned - if it had been unsigned what would that have had to do with anything... I have never been shy or secretive in my postings, - but I just checked, I did sign it. The more important point, is that my post was to include SmashTheState will Snowded, TallNapoleon, CABlankenship and any others that engage in name-calling - the quote I gave had him using the terms Randroid and cult. Are you saying that he hasn't been name-calling? Are you defending Snowded, CABlankenship or any ones else, saying they haven't been name-calling? Are you saying that referring to Wikipedia editors as syncophantic cult members isn't name-calling? I notice you had nothing to say about TallNapoleon calling editors liars. I guess you weren't wearing your admin hat when you saw that. Your posturing as neutral is getting to look downright silly. --Steve (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand arbitration
This is a courtesy note to all editors who have submitted evidence. Some contributions to the evidence page have been moved to the evidence talk page, per the prior notice given. General comments, observations, analysis and so forth should be posted to the evidence talk page and workshop pages. Main evidence page contributions need to be supported by linked evidence. Material moved to, or posted on, the arbitration case talk pages will still be noted and taken into account by the arbitrators.

Some portions of evidence moved to the talk page may be appropriate for the main evidence page. In the process of moving material, keeping some material on the main evidence page would have required rewriting the evidence, taking bits clumsily out of context, or otherwise deeply affecting the presentation. Editors should feel free to rewrite and reintroduce such evidence (with supporting links) to the evidence page.

Some submissions remaining on the evidence page still require further supporting evidence. For example, claims about broader pattern of behavior need to be supported by comparable evidence. A paucity of diffs, links only showing some mild infractions, or otherwise weak evidence may result in your assertions being granted much less weight.

I encourage all parties to finalize their evidence and focus on the workshop over the next few days as the case moves towards resolution. If you have any comments, questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Vassyana (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bucklow (hundred)
I think I've taken the article as far as I'm able without a visit to the library at Stockport (which contains much material from the Lancs and Ches antiquarian society). If you're around that way let me know as then I won't need to go, but if not I may go on a spare day. I'm tending mainly to articles along the Irwell Valley so Cheshire is a little out of my way (although Stockport is only 15 minutes for me). Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am almost certainly going to be in the library there in about three weeks time, though the date is a bit uncertain, as my wife has a UK citizenship test there coming up. I'll let you know when the details are more firmed up, and see what I can dig out. Alternatively, I may be visiting Chester soon, and could get the same stuff in the library there (which looks much less grand, though: more like a very large travel agents, in fact.)  DDStretch    (talk)  23:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Word Count Issue
To be fair, my section is 1087 words, Steve's is 967, and Kjaer's is 631 (I did a word count because I trimmed down my section to the high 900s before I added in some last min stuff, so the 1600s number sounded high). Though I agree with you that there may have been some WP:Wikilawyering involved. Idag (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It may well be a difference in technqiues used: the technique I used is described in my response on the talk page. I think it shows that we should rely on the clerks to make decisions about such matters rather than raise complaints ourselves in public.  DDStretch    (talk)  10:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I thought I'd pop in and thank you for your message of good luck posted to my talk page. Once I feel a little less sick, hopefully within a couple of weeks, I'll be back on wiki. Thanks again for your message. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

British Isles
Do you think you could "un-archive" the last four contributions which you have hidden, those from MidnightBlue, Bill Reid, Theosony, and BritishWatcher? I think that most of them are a reasonable contribution, and the issue of improved references will need to be addressed. Theosony's comment may not be helpful to that particular discussion but in my view we should not omit one user's contribution from the thread - if you disagree, maybe you could just "un-archive" (or whatever the best word is) the other three. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. I've moved the four out of the archived bit and before them started a new section called "Improving Sources" I hope that is what you had in mind.  DDStretch    (talk)  12:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives!
The above user is engaging in strange talk page behaviour again at British Isles. Can you look into it? Thank you.78.16.102.82 (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: Having an unregistered account handling Armchair's conduct, isn't gonna cool things off. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether I have a an account or not shouldn't matter in the slightest; it's all about conduct and ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! is being very disruptive especially considering he/she was blocked for similar behaviour very recently.78.16.102.82 (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I'm a proponent of mandatory registration, we'll leave it at that. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheshire, the Manchester Ship Canal and the Local Government Act 1894
Hello there. I was working on Local Government Act 1894 and I found a couple of facts I thought you might find mildly interesting/amusing regarding the introduction of parish councils in Cheshire.

Under the legislation, any parish with a population of 300 or more was obliged to form a parish council, with a membership of between 5 and 15 members, the exact number being fixed by the county council depending on circumstances.

Anyway, the flaw in the system was that the figures were taken from the previous census of 1891. At that date the Manchester Ship Canal had been under construction, and there were large numbers of navvies living in encampments in the parishes of Netherpool and Stanlow.

According to The Times of 6 December, 1894, the county council ordered the formation of a five-member parish council in Netherpool. By 1894 the parish's population was confined to a single farm, and the parish council consisted of a farmer, his sister, two daughters and a farm labourer, who assumed full powers, including setting a rate (on themselves!) and appointing officers.

More extreme again was the situation in Stanlow. The Times of 7 December reported that that a parish council of 8 members had been ordered for the parish, but it only had a single inhabnitant, who chose not to nominate himself!

Lozleader (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheshire project meet up
Hi DDS -- you mentioned you might be interested in a project meet up. I wondered what kind of dates and places might suit you? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)