User talk:Crouch, Swale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello, Crouch, Swale, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. ϢereSpielChequers 13:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Shetland[edit]

Thanks for checking all these tiddlers. Gluibuil does exist - just north of Vaila House, but you are right - there is only one. Ben MacDui 10:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm going to take it through FAR. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
OK it does exist [1][2], its just that it doesn't show up using Geograph's search tool. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
It is not named on e.g. Streetmap's OS map at 1:50,000, but is at 1:25,000 in the Wester Sound betwixt Vaila and Mainland. It's one of the complex islands that becomes two at high tides. See also here. Ben MacDui 15:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I am about to go through Yell (the last section), I will list the ones that don't appear to exist at all. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Partial title matches[edit]

Last (and first) names aren't PTM's for disambiguation purposes. People are frequently referred to by just a single name, e.g. Washington crossed the Delaware, Paul is dead. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:NAMELIST most are, there are lots of people called Washington but only George is mentioned on the main DAB, you can also apply the same logic to the placenames[3] but its just that we don't usually have article on place names. Great Washbourne was once just Washbourne and Washbourne, Devon is a collection of places called Washbourne. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Grouped parishes in Wiltshire[edit]

Three more grouped civil parishes for your list:

All could be deleted, as they add little to the individual parish articles.

Wiltshire has at least 4 more – Berwick Bassett and Winterbourne Monkton; Heytesbury, Imber and Knook; Upper Deverills; Wilcot and Huish with Oare. No articles for these. --Wire723 (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wire723: Thanks, Suffolk has lots of grouped parishes but none of them have articles. They could maybe just be redirected to a "governance" section on the largest CP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Motion - Amendment request: Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal[edit]

Hello Crouch, Swale, I'm Cameron11598 and I am one of the Arbitration Committee's clerks. This message is to inform you that a motion has been proposed in the Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal ARCA request. Please do not hesitate to reach out to me with any questions you may have. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions imposed on Crouch, Swale as part of their unblock conditions in January 2018 is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Crouch, Swale fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the topic area. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse. Crouch, Swale's remaining restrictions continue in force.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale

Support[edit]

I know you are disappointed at the outcome of your appeal, but you should not be surprised. There is plenty of good in your activity on Wikipedia and your various edits, such as fixing links to Commons, correcting wikilinks are both valuable and constructive, and are appreciated. Therefore reinstating a full site ban is not helpful, to you or to the project. However Arbcom wants to see evidence of a change of behaviour, which is exactly the same thing I have been seeking from you. And there is very little evidence of that.

You now have the opportunity to take part in RMs, which will give you the chance to show that the the restrictions on moves can be safely removed. If you follow my advice here you should be fine: Don't just link a policy, paraphrase the policy and explain why its appropriate in the specific case.

None of that will make any difference to the restriction on article creation. To quote Callanecc, you will need "clear and substantial evidence" that you "can write meaningful and substantial content on notable topics". If you say that all you want to do is create stubs you are not demonstrating that at all, and therefore the restriction will not be removed.

Stubs are not inherently bad. But if you can't demonstrate the ability to expand articles, not only are you not demonstrating that you can write substantial content you aren't even showing why the subject is notable. Civil parishes are notable. Not because they are civil parishes, but because there is a ton of information available about all of them, from a thousand different sources. The text of the article needs to make the claim to notability plain to anyone.

In the discussion on my talk page, I urged you to expand your stubs to much more substantial articles. Looking at User:Crouch, Swale/South Huish, you didn't even mention Hope Cove! If you start to make improvements to those stubs, I will be able to support you with further improvements on the relevant talk pages. If I am happy with the standard of the work, I may even be able to move the developed articles to mainspace on your behalf (assuming arbcom is ok with me doing so). That will start to give evidence that the restriction can be removed, and I can help you put it together to give a future appeal a much greater chance of success.

You don't have to work with me, nor do you have to do what I have asked. But if you don't, I can't support you in any meaningful way. I doubt you will get the restriction removed without support from other editors. If you want my help, please let me know.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I was surprised as I had to wait a full 6 months to appeal. However the point might be that I am asking for something that isn't workable, such as the topics that I want to create or the titles that I want to try to get. That might suggest that its more likely to cause problems than its worth.
Yes I will do that, as I pointed out that was simply because I thought you knew about bold v link back to the same page, but you didn't which I apologize for, you have criticized me for too long comments before.
I thought the point is that the stubs should have meaningful content, rather than just 1 sentence.
I don't think there is anything stopping me from asking anyone to move the userspace articles into mainspace. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
So you won't bother to expand those draft articles (or others) further then?
That last point is not OK - its a circumvention of your restrictions via meatpuppetry. There is a big difference between me volunteering to move them after "approving" the substantial improvement, and you asking someone to do it for you when that improvement is lacking.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I added some more content to South Huish, and I'm not asking anyone to do so. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
That was in response to: "I don't think there is anything stopping me from asking anyone to move the userspace articles into mainspace." Yes there is, as that is an attempt to circumvent your restrictions.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
That is not really circumventing, as far as I'm aware the restrictions were only me doing it directly, I thought it was pointed out that I could create pages in the userspace for if others (like you) want to move them. But anyway I wasn't asking you (or anyone else) to do that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
By asking someone else it becomes problematic. Yes this isn't a problem right now, just want to make sure it doesn't become one.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Ashford Carbonell[edit]

Long-term page protection is regarded as drastic, as it blocks all non-autoconfirmed users. You could go to ANI and ask if a filter is possible. - Donald Albury 12:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

To be quite honest I think a year would be worthwhile as (s)he will probably just add the same statement within days after the protection expires but I trust you're judgement on this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Lewis[edit]

Terrible idea. Please reconsider. --John (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@John: the discussion at Talk:Lewis#Requested move 18 July 2018 was closed and we are fixing the links before the move of Lewis>Isle of Lewis and Lewis (disambiguation)>Lewis is preformed. What part of this is a "terrible idea"? Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I saw. What does it achieve? --John (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
So that users can select what article they want when they search for "Lewis". Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
What is the evidence that these "users" are having a problem with the status quo ante? There is certainly no consensus for the edits you are making. Please stop. --John (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I think this argument shows users were having problems and the move discussion has already been closed, I'm just helping clear up after it (thus implied consensus for correcting the links), before the move. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Droxford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meon Valley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Changed back to how I linked the first time, I didn't realise it was a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Hagley Park, Christchurch[edit]

Schwede66 is now persistently deleting the disambiguation hatnote at the article above. Since you took part in the recent discussion, recommending disambiguation, you may wish to comment on the mattter on its [4] talkpage. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Why are you making a proposal you don't support?[edit]

Talk:Bend#Requested move 31 August 2018. It's highly disruptive to make a proposal which you oppose on the outset. You present no argument for it. Some informal comments in favor were made by Yours Truly above your fake proposal, but that's was never intended to be a formal proposal. I started the discussion to see if anyone agreed, and if they did and it looked like there might be consensus, maybe they would start a formal proposal. Someone opposing making the proposal is just disruptive. I suggest you close it. --В²C 16:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I made the proposal in response to this comment "why is this discussion going on without a template?". See Talk:M2 motorway (Great Britain)#Requested move for another example where this was done. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF from nine years ago??? How did you even find that? Anyway, the proper answer to that question was: BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROPOSAL, not to make a bogus one that's not even formed properly. Why you !voted in the first place is also a good question. I, for one, don't have time for this. If you don't close it I'm reporting this disruption. If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. --В²C 17:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I know of that because I track many page creations/moves and I can't really close it anyway as someone has supported moving the DAB and making a different topic primary, see also this. I apologize for making what you didn't want to be a formal discussion formal, but I did it in response to IIO's comment. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

ANI discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding a disruptive RM proposal that you started that you explicitly oppose. The thread is Disruptive RM proposal that opposes what it is proposing. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Bend. В²C 17:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Category renaming[edit]

Hello. I see you've tagged loads of categories for renaming, but you don't seem to have started a discussion at WP:CfD. Could you either remove the tags or start a discussion (actually you'll need to start separate discussions for 10 and 11 September as you've tagged different ones on different days). Cheers, Number 57 11:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)