User talk:Ddstretch/Archives/2008/August

More Tharky

A merger proposal was made two months ago by someone that Celtic tribes of the British Isles be merged to List of Celtic tribes. The latter is a much more comprehensive article and includes nearly all of the information in the former. There has been no objections to the proposal when I came across it a few days ago; I went to considerable effort to merge both without loosing any information and keeping everything in order. Almost immediately Tharkuncall reverted all I'd done without any rationale other than "I don't agree". I have defended this guy repeatedly but really we need an Admin warning to stop warring (ie demerging) on List of Celtic tribes. Despite the recent hiccup perhaps you'd warn him not to revert the merge again? Sarah777 (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, though given the recent events, it feels a bit like a poisoned challice! Still, you are correct, I think, to express misgivings about it. Although I feel my potential for action has been limited by what has recently happened (like it being hinted that I am so involved, I can no longer have the distance to be able to take action against TharkunColl), I have made as strong a suggestion as I can to TharkunColl on his talk page in agreement with what Alison has stated. If you feel there is the need for some stronger action, then I'm at a loss, as I feel I have been rather undercut and left hamstrung by the other admins on WP:AN/I over the blocking, so much so, that I am no longer sure just how much weight I would have as an administrator anymore.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks DD. I don't feel you are 'undermined' (and have said so to Matt somewhere else); I'd be concerned if every decent Admin we have reacted to a single error like that - we'd be left with only the Warrior-Admins! Probably I was a bit unfair to ask you - but I thought Alison might be unavailable with all she has on. Hope the infection is clearing up btw. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to this. I don't feel you are in anyway undermined. OK it was probably an error but the motivation was fine. Tharky was being very disruptive and acting in such a way as to make an attempt at arriving at an agreed position almost impossible to achieve. I see that Keeper intervened at least in part on the cabal here and Alison made a statement so hopefully some other admins will take up the baton. Get well soon and please keep the interventions up!

Just my 2c worth. You have not been undermined at all, and I agree with Sarah777 above. Do not hang up your boots, and wield those tools as you see fit - you were given the tools because you were trusted to use them. If you like, do what other admins do, and make yourself open to recall. That way you will continue to be assured that the community has faith in your decisions even when things get sticky. --HighKing (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The Task force

Hello Ddstretch, you've linked to Ireland in your posting. It should be linked to Republic of Ireland, as Northern Ireland is still apart of the UK. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

oops! Well spotted! I've altered it.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Jolly good. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The hiding of Republic of Ireland on articles

Hello Ddstretch, I'm becoming increasingly concerned with the pipe-linking of Republic of Ireland on many articles. Is the possibility of confusing readers, a valid reason for discontinuing the pipelink (which I personally have no trouble with). GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It is worth suggesting it, though I'm not sure how great a problem others would see it to be. Personally, although I may slip up from time to time, I think it is always best to spell out exactly what you mean rather explicitly, and so perhaps using [[Ireland|island of Ireland]] may be used at times, because of the risk of confusing in a key place, the republic and the entire island (and let's not get into the pronounciation similarities!)  DDStretch  (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

For the love of j...! The piping was a hard won compromise after countless rows about the name of the Irish state. Don't open up a whole new war. Sarah777 (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In which case, I think I'll back out of this at a smart pace and refuse to be drawn any more on this issue.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The wise general does not march into a minefield blindfolded, as Confucius would doubtless say were he still around! Sarah777 (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Having now recovered enough that I'm spending most of the day out of bed, I don't want to have to perfect the art of walking on eggshells, and so I'm going to avoid them rather in this case.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(by the way, wasn't it Sun Zi in "The Art of War"? His name may be more familiar as Sun Tzu, though that is now not the official pinyin spelling of the name, and I haven't been able to show the tones anyway.)  DDStretch  (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't recall there being a compromise worked out on this (but I don't dispute there is one). Anyways, I certainly won't bring this up in the public domain (afterall, I've no personal problems with the pipe-linking). GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What kind of pipe linking is it? From Ireland to ROI, or something different? I do think the use of ROI (over Ireland) on certain occasions will have to play a part in BI usage.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's [Republic of Ireland|Ireland]; I was concerned about it at articles like Dublin (for example). A less familiar reader could mistake Dublin as the capital of the entire island. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be mentioned at the Taskforce. If there's editors who are offended by the term British Isles being used on Wikipedia? then there must be editors offended by the hiding of Republic of Ireland on Wikipedia. I could see a UKer (particularly from Northern Ireland) being upset with seeing Dublin, Ireland; eh? GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe I haven't thought of it, and with all your hints too. It's the root of the problem. We simply have to have the word Republic back. It's now a priority as far as I'm concerned. Ireland is far more than the ROI - It can include the Northern Irish. It looks completely political, and it's totally hypocritical to then go after BI, you are right. And a line like "..in the Republic of Ireland and the surrounding British Isles." is a great deal less problematic-sounding for us. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've brought it up, at the taskforce. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

ProSaDomino

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ProSaDomino

Another sock who's first edit is to start moving around the diocese pages once again. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Tharky again

Any advise on the edits this morning on the Scotland page? I thought I had done the right thing in reverting to the overnight stable version to allow a discussion. However I am ow being threatened with 3RR from someone who has obviously not bothered to read the edit history but is reacting to an editor he does not like. --Snowded TALK 11:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Google Books

Huh? In many cases I am replacing rather than removing links to items on Google Books, but will review those already undertaken.

The reason for NOT deep linking is that it doesn't permit me to determine what the (C) status of the linked work is. If the link is to the Description page (which also provides a download link for the PDF) then the fact that it's Public Domain would be VERY obvious.

Thanks for suggesting that I bring this up at WP:RSN, the issue of 'scans' is something that needs further discussion Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to make this case on WP:RSN where I directed you to, as if you are correct, it needs wider coverage.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above (and the WP:RSN disscuion) - Please check my recent contributions : My policy is now to truncate the links to the &id field unless it's a PD work or it's a link to a SPECFIC page, However, in places when doing this truncation, I've been able to confirm/expand some references. I've also been able to add in details (such as ISBN's) for some references that did not previously have them, as well as converting some bare refs to an appropriate {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) form.

You may also be interested to know that a list of works thought to be PD has been started on Wikisource. If it's PD and cited here on the English Wikipedia, it should ideally be a priority for inclusion in Wikisource. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

IP 86.xxx.xxx

I'm growing concerned with this IP range (see Lough Neagh). GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheshire churches navbox

David, please see the discussion here. Can you help? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You should probably know...

... about Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Yorkshirian. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had my suspicions that "The Cavendish" was a sockpuppet, but I'd been thinking of the wrong editor as being the master sockpuppeteer.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I was fairly sure with this one, even noting it on his user talk page. I should've gone with my instincts! Oh well, innocent until proven guilty I guess! The list of socks isn't an extensive one, merely the most recent. I believe Yorkshirian is a chronic offender and will return again. I'll stay vigilant. I hope you're feeling better, :) --Jza84 |  Talk  19:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm slightly constrained after my disasterous error that led to an AN/I section on my actions recently, but I won't say more about that here (though the medication I was on for the leg infection may have had some effect on my thinking at time, according to the list of side-effects and my GP's opinion), but I am holding back on some suspicions at the moment about sockpuppets. My leg is a little better, as I'm not now largely confined to bed, and the infected hole in it is reducing in size a bit. I'm not out of the woods with it yet. I'm just so sad that this has let my wife and (mostly) my son down in not going back to their birth-home in China at this time.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. However, I'm sure you're family are understanding - had I been in their shoes I wouldn't want my father/parter getting sick abroad at any cost.

Something to cheer you up though.... the plot thickens surrounding User:Yorkshirian, as kindly investigated by User:Mr Stephen. It has come to our attention that the notorious User:Fone4My may infact have been User:Yorkshirian completing a web of deceit that has troubled pretty much all aspects of our userships in the last 12 months.

The evidence is complied at Category talk:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Yorkshirian. Although Wikiversity:No_shrines_for_vandals applies, I think it's important that there is a record of this connection. This really is quite something. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I know - absolutely unbelievable. This is clearly somebody with a very odd mindset - obsessive even. Infact, this is obsessive to the point that I feel a little sorry for them. They clearly have problems.

I have no doubt that the sock abuse surrounding Scotland (and possibly Wales - although I don't have that watchlisted), is infact related to the troubles I had with Yorkshirian, and inturn, the troubles that User:Jack forbes had with User:Fone4My. Having faced the wrath of Yorkshirian at his most vile, I can now safely say that I have much greater sympathy for Mr forbes's actions (although they were still less-than-appropriate of course), and feel pleased that I unblocked him, with conditions.

As I said to User:MRSC, a man/boy with that amount of conviction won't be leaving in a hurry - I think they're obsessive - and we will have to be extra vigilant. I've no doubt that there are still some socks out there (the check user didn't pick up on User:CalcioSalvo - a self-confessed sock).

My honest opinion? I think WP is losing the "arms race" against sock puppetry. It needs stronger methods of detection. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt he's had the time to write that! What, with dreaming up new IDs! --Jza84 |  Talk  17:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading through some of the cases with these sock puppets. I was joking around before, aided by a bit of self-confessed smuggery and glee, but I've come to realise this is actually the single most extreme case of gross-misconduct, sockpuppetry and abuse I've ever seen on WP.

Reading more and more, I've added more evidence proof (here) that Yorkshirian was once User:Daddy Kindsoul. Just take a look at this or this or this - each is as outstanding as the other. There are hundreds of sockpuppets, and I've read somewhere that it's been impossible to range-block him because of his ISP and the types of (AOL) ranges he used/uses.

I think Daddy Soulkind/Yorkshirian must actually hold some kind of record. We're talking about a user who's been banned about 3 or 4 times over, for the most horrific bullying. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Reassessing

Hello Ddstretch. I would like to thank you for your thoughts on reassessing my restrictions. I certainly don't want to appear ungrateful, but after initially being very pleased with the chance, I have come to realise, that it may be more hassle than it's worth, for a good while anyway. Thank you again. Jack forbes (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Serene Dreamer

Hi I noticed your reverts on Serene Dreamer, can you take a look again at these, as I suspect that we may have a new sock of Yorkshirian here. Keith D (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly! I see they've made only four edits, but were straight in doing things a new user wouldn't really be able to do, and they were active on previous areas that Yorkshirian was active in disrupting as well. I think I'll get someone to take a closer look, may be checkuser them, etc. (By the way, I wasn't sure what was the best form for the template, so I'm happy to be guided by your edits there.)  DDStretch  (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks would be good to do the checkuser even if it fails. I think the compact template was the consensus apart from Yorkshirian. Keith D (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Advise wanted

I hope you are feeling better, and if you are not ignore this! I would really appreciate some advise on the exchange on the task force with Matt. I've been trying to get across a basic point about equality of treatment for some time and the net result is a torrent of accusations of Nationalist POV. As far as I can see I've stayed calm and made the point (Ireland and British Isles have both to be in play, political terms also OK but don't mix) as reasonably as I can. However I could have got it wrong in which case your advise would be appreciated. I am conscious that I triggered a similar reaction in Jza84 at one point when I said Welsh should not be treated differently from other languages (a similar point about equality of treatment). You have my email if you want to use that. --Snowded TALK 16:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you two shared emails before? --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Re a sock puppet suspicion Matt. My email is also open if you check my page --Snowded TALK 17:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

cemetery site

Hi

I spoke to the person who did the middlewich cemetery records and they are accurate and were payed to do the job by the middlewich cemetery commitee and the missing amout of records was that the link buttons were not correctly linked to the wright pages .

That deserve some alot of praise for there work and is set out in an easy and understanding way.

So the link should be added to wikipedia as it also explores the wildlife thats special in our area of middlewich and has not seen anything that involves wildlife in middlewich on this site which is something to think about.

Thankyou

Beth Sharp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethwildlifelover (talk • contribs) 19:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

You appear to have locked the article with a demonstrably out of date statement in it. Can you change it please? Thanks. ðarkuncoll 23:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you need to discuss the matter rather than game the system by going up to the 3rr limit without discussion.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Peterloo Massacre and dates

Hi - spotted that my date edit got reverted by you, as dates shouldn't be linked any more. So I reverted my own later edit too. I've been working off MOS:SYL#Date_autoformatting for guidelines on linking dates. What's the latest guideline on when to avoid linking fully specified dates? Cheers, --Oscarthecat (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, User:Malleus Fatuorum and the FA reviewers seem to be more on the ball with this one, and I took my revert from the earlier identical one done by Malleus as a guide. From my understanding, it seems that the presence of a high number of linked dates creates an article which has distractingly high amounts of "blue" in them, and so various changes have been made (such as not linking dates in publication details of citations). On reflection, it does seem that the date for this event is a bit mroe significant than that, but Malleus seems to be more in tune with present thinking, and that is why I took my lead from his actions. It might be an idea to try to get it more clearly sorted out.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll drop Malleus a note, see if we can clear up the guidelines on this. The opening para having linked dates seems reasonable to me. I'll let you know what the outcome is. Thanks, --Oscarthecat (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

86.42.109.173 is back

Just reversed the normal vandalism on River Shannon --Snowded TALK 10:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it. I now expect to be labelled a British Imperialist or some such nonsense for semi-protecting it in its current state.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It will balance up engaging in covert email traffic to support nefarious nationalist goals elsewhere ;-) --Snowded TALK 14:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

86.xxx.xxx returns

Thanks DD, for re-blocking him/her (see talk:British Isles). GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the extent of my involvement and I think it will be the last action on the article from myself: ironic what the editor was blocked for, given that I am again being labelled as some kind of nationalist. If it happens again, I suggest you approach a different administrator, as I really want to leave this poisonous atmosphere behind now.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I realize you've been bruised by the British/Irish disputes. Believe me, I've been (in the past) labeled British nationalist & Irish nationalist; it gets quite heated those disputes. I sure hope you change your mind & revist those articles discussions. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

?

See ? at [1] — Rlevse • Talk • 15:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Per DRV instructions: " of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum." — Rlevse • Talk • 16:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Not guilty. Look at the edit history of the article and the discussion on [[2]] in section 38 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Nene River Clubs) (the slasshes etc foul up a direct link here). I did restore it to user space (a sub-page of Mayalld's talk page), but it quickly got moved back to article space by this editor. The later actions were not of my doing or my suggestion as I did expect it to spend much more time in user space to be worked on.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the crucial message which shows the extent of my actions here.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

And this is when, after I restored the deleted article to user space, the user concerned moved it back to mainspace or article space.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Maltese again

We are having troubles with a new anon editor at Maltese - although he now writes with a weird esperanto accent (sic!) he curiously introduces the same opinions and sources that were used by now banned sockpuppeteer User:MagdelenaDiArco. Maybe you could look into it? I think maybe a protection would be in order.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)