User talk:Ddstretch/Archives/2018/January

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * :  DDStretch    (talk)

to
 * :  DDStretch    (talk)

Note: to keep the signature under the limit of 255 characters, it was necessary to use several character-saving tricks, including using hexadecimal numbers for font colors.

—Anomalocaris (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've made the necessary changes.   DDStretch    (talk)  03:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Muboshgu
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg None

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news
 * The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
 * The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration
 * Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , , , ,.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Your revert on King's School Chester
Hello, regarding your revert of my edit, you have said that this was reverted because it is unsourced. The previous information which you reverted back to is also unsourced. The information can be found on the school website, along with most of the other information in the article. Your revert has caused the article to be incorrect again. Given this context, I don't understand the reason for your revert. Kidburla (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It is true that there is unsourced information on that article. It is important not to allow any more into that article. If the information can be sourced to the school website, then I strongly urge you to learn how to use references and add a references to the information you are free to re-enter. Look at [WP:RS]] for more information and you can be guided by looking at how similar kinds of references have been added in similar or, indeed, the same article. If there is a better source for the information than the school website, then try to use that in preference. Thanks for your message, and please consider re-adding the information, but this time, please try to add it with the source clearly stated, as I suggested above.  DDStretch    (talk)  13:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's wrong to replace some incorrect unsourced information with correct unsourced information? Your revert has put the text back to the previous, now-incorrect version. I don't think every single sentence of the article needs to be sourced? For example, if you were writing an article about Facebook, would you have to put a reference for every sentence of the article even if it is public knowledge? Kidburla (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. However, with respect, what you think is not really relevant here, though, is it? The fact is that only you and a few others knew that the information you were adding was correct - there is, after all, a long history of deliberate vandalism on that article. Of course, not every sentence needs references. But when it comes to adding claims about living people, then the policy stated in WP:BLP takes over, and unsourced claims added should be removed. I admit, the previous entry should also have been removed at the same time, and I also note that, despite knowing a source for the claim, you've spent time replying to me rather than take the time to add the source and reference to that article (so I may remove those unsourced claims after all). We are discussing specific issues here about claims about living people. What one might do about other information depends upon the context and nature of the claims, and "public knowledge" (by which I think you mean knowledge that is thought to be widely and commonly known) is sometimes neither commonly known, or correct when investigated, which is why one should always be prepared to back it up with evidence (which is why the snopes site does such good work). Please, I urge you, as I did in my previous message, if you say there is a source in the official site, then add it!  DDStretch    (talk)  18:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Additionally, looking at the website this part of it doesn't list the person you added information about as the headmaster, so it seems your claim about the person you say is the headmaster is not as straightforward as you made it seem. In which case, I'm removing the information from the info-box!  DDStretch    (talk)  19:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * (a) "what you think is not really relevant here, though, is it" - I think it is relevant because this is what I think is the Wikipedia policy
 * (b) "The fact is that only you and a few others knew that the information you were adding was correct" - I don't think this is accurate as this is information publicly available on the school's website
 * (c) "the policy stated in WP:BLP takes over, and unsourced claims added should be removed" - unsourced claims only need to be removed for "any material challenged or likely to be challenged", but I don't think information publicly available on the school's website is likely to be challenged
 * (d) "despite knowing a source for the claim, you've spent time replying to me rather than take the time to add the source" - yes, because I don't see why this should be sourced. If you have too many references in an article it appears cluttered. As I already said, it's available on the school's website. This would be different if I was referring to some claim in an obscure CNN article or something.
 * (e) "this part of it doesn't list the person you added information about as the headmaster" - I don't know what you mean. The link you gave has a section "FURTHER CONTACT INFORMATION"; under that section, it lists the headmaster as "Mr George Hartley", which is exactly what I have listed in my original edit, which you reverted.
 * (f) "I'm removing the information from the info-box" - I didn't modify the info-box in my edit. Kidburla (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

There is so much vandalism on that article, that I got confused with your edit and a previous one in my comments, above. My apologies. But this could have been avoided if you had sourced your claim, and paid attention to altering the information also given in the infobox to make your edit at least consistent with other in formation in the article. The issue about a cluttered article doesn't appear valid for this article, but WP:BLP certainly does apply. You really do need to source information about named individuals on school articles as too many attempts at vandalism take place - there have been multiple attempts to vandalise this and other school articles I monitor, so I am alert about this. I will restore the information you provided, and it will now be consistent with the information given in the infobox that I later edited, which you had not edited and which remained inaccurate even after just your edits. This is another issue that needs to be attended to when making these kinds of edits - making sure you cover all the places in the article to make your edits consistent. My apologies, again, for getting mixed up about your edit, though. However, I maintain that WP:BLP applies particularly with school articles that get vandalised, and you should have added a source for others to evaluate your edit at least. DDStretch   (talk)  20:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * As an extra observation, I note that at the end of the section in the reference you provide about the new house structure, there is still a comment from Chris Ramsey as if he is the headmaster. It certainly highlights the need for the school to take more care in updating its own website.  DDStretch    (talk)  20:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your apology; no problem. I'm also sorry I didn't update the info-box which was my oversight. Regarding the reference about the new house structure, yes, it does mention Chris Ramsey as the headmaster, because he *was* the headmaster at the time that article was released. The article was released in February 2017 announcing changes to take effect in September 2017, which have now taken effect. George Hartley took over as headmaster in September 2017. Now, what to do about the "headmasters" section in general? It seems to me that the list is entirely unsourced and I could not find any information about past headmasters on the school website. I could not even find a headmaster called "Leslie Francis Harvey" in a Google search. Should we get rid of this list of past headmasters altogether? However, if we do keep it, can we add Chris Ramsey to the list, as your recent edits have removed him from the section entirely? Also, your recent edit makes it appear that "Headmasters" is now a subsection of "Controversies" which I presume is a mistake? Kidburla (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in replying - I was occupied elsewhere. I think the Headmasters section should be edited as you suggest, and we probably should remove the unsourced material. We do have problems, especially if we have knowledge of some facts that are not independently sourced (I know this from the article about my own old grammar school, which although I consider myself as being from Cheshire, was not in Cheshire as we had moved to Lincolnshire by that time - I thought I knew of some historical details concerning the dates of David Rees as headmaster that were not easily noted elsewhere, or in one instance, were noted in a book on the history of the school written by my old history teacher, but which was not, at that time, readily available to check on any more). My grammar school had the advantages of having a history teacher and another, later, teacher, who, as part of their appointment, took it upon themselves to research and publish details of the history of the school (see the entry for headmasters in Carre's Grammar School). Sorry for the mistake in formatting of the section on Headmasters.  DDStretch    (talk)  14:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:User WikiProject Cheshire‎‎
You are aware that the advice is WP:BRD and that you should have discussed my revert on the talk page, rather than just re-instituted your edits. Furthermore, you are supposed to give meaningful edit summaries, explaining why you are making edits, as described in WP:ES. I note that you have done a whole slew of edits without paying attention to providing meaningful edit summaries. I would have expected more than this from an editor with your history. DDStretch (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not noticing your revert of my edit to Template:User WikiProject Cheshire‎‎ before making another edit. I am making hundreds of userbox edits in succession and sometimes overlook things.  My edits are primarily to modernize to current Template:Userbox preferred grammar and to resize to the standard 252x47 pixel userbox dimensions.  I could have used the edit summary "Updated.", but I felt the explicit changes made were more useful.  You can compare the previous version with the revised version with Template:User WikiProject Cheshire&action=history.  The obsolete term Image: should be replaced with File:.  The terms | id-fc =  and | id-s =  are meaningless since there is no id text.  Common web colors are usually spelled out.  Most userboxes now use | info-a = center.  Please see Userboxes/WikiProjects/alphabetical 03.  You can make whatever edits you like to my version.  Thanks for your feedback.  Yours aye,  Buaidh  18:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the apology, which I completely accept. I think you are doing good work, but that the rather terse edit summaries can lead to misunderstandings. May I suggest the following solution? Describe the reasons for the changes you are making in a short section somewhere on your user space, and in the edit summaries, provide a link to that summary. This would allow people to see and understand more easily what you are doing. However, this is just a suggestion to support your work and to try to avoid any additional misunderstandings that might happen. May be I am unusual, though, and such explanations are not needed for most people.  DDStretch    (talk)  20:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a wonderful solution which, I must admit, had escaped me. Thank you so much.  Yours aye,  Buaidh  20:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm happy you found it useful, and you are very welcome! Happy editing!  DDStretch    (talk)  20:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Inflammatory edit summary

 * Thank you for your message. I had thought the matter closed - I doubt Meter will bother looking at my edit summary on my talk page, as he doesn't seem interested in any kind of help and was, at the very least, very brisk with me when I tried to communicate with him. I was simply trying to understand, and to let Meter know my frustrations.


 * There is, surely, quite the difference between my edit and an edit made here. Yet we both received the exact same message with the same accusations.


 * I had written more to Meter, but it was lost due to an edit conflict. I hope that someone, some time, takes a look at the situation because, while you say that Wikipedia doesn't tolerate certain things I, as an editor, also do not tolerate certain attitudes.


 * I am blown away by the brick wall I have been presented with when trying to improve an article, though I have had more pleasant exchanges thankfully.


 * I had not considered that my edit would be contentious (and nobody bothered to start a discussion to tell me why they thought it was) - particularly as what I had added were known historical facts as presented by Wikipedia itself. See Terminology of the British Isles for one example, which proves that the equivalent of "British" existed long before the equivalent of "English" in the island.


 * I'm aware that Wikpedia is not a source, but I had considered it precedent.


 * If I could take back my edit summary, I would. I seriously do not want to hear about the bizarre exchanges I had had with Meter again. For me, the matter is dropped and in the past. I do consider the comment "not interested" in certain other edit summary to also be inflammatory, by the way.


 * With the knowledge that a user can simply delete other messages from their talk page if they don't like them, I will be making copies of my comments on my IP's talk page for my own reference in the future. --75.177.79.101 (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)