User talk:Ddstretch/Archives/2008/September

Forty shilling freeholders

Hello DDStretch. There's no doubt that forty shilling freeholders were enfranchised by the Acts mentioned in the 1832 Reform Act article. You can see what Blackstone himself said by doing on this webpage http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk1ch2.htm (its an odd source to use) - word search "forty fhilling" (the second 'f' should by rights be a long s but f is used instead.) Seemingly the statutes spoke of "people" who were freeholders. Women were barred by common law from voting as 40s freeholders - perhaps on the basis they were not entitled to carry out a public function - I'm not sure. An attempt was made in the courts in 1868 to have it accepted that women could vote as forty shilling freeholders but it failed. In 1868 it still appertained that adult women could own property but if they were married the property went to the husband - this was changed by the Married Women's Property Act 1882. Hope this helps.

Ned of the Hills (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Dollar auction

Hello--I figured putting a {{cn}} on there and going to the talk page were good. After all, the previous version wasn't referenced either. CRETOG8(t/c) 22:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'll tag the version that is now current, but I'll dig out my game theory books and get a ref for the correct version tomorrow (I know I can find one there), but my memory is that the version that is currently there is correct. Of course, I may be wrong, so it will be good to get the refs sorted out.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I just cut that section out, because I think it's (at least technically) wrong as well as unref'ed. Unless someone's shown Shubik wrong, he points out a (boring) equilibrium in the original paper. But, yeah, a few people getting more referenced detail in the article couldn't hurt. CRETOG8(t/c) 22:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's probably best. It is a long time since I did anything with game theory, and so my memory may well be playing up.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Middlesex vandalism

Hi. Middlesex was semi-protected to stop anon IPs from doing this sort of thing. Unfortunately this was removed by a now retired admin in August. I think it may be time to put it back. What do you think? Lozleader (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello there. I think you are right that it might be best to semi-protect it again, and so I've just done that.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That was quick! We'll see what happens.... Lozleader (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

Hello DDStretch, I just wanted to follow up on one point regarding referencing of images - I'm emphatically in favor of it. All images that I contribute are placed in commons, and I reference them there. I was thinking that that made it unnecessary to repeat the reference within the wikipedia article. I'd be interested in your thoughts and any suggestions, if you think that something else is preferable. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Chester@Large

I am the owner of Chester@Large, the Chester Food & Drink website. I notice you have twice reverted my addition of a link to Chester@Large. This seems to me inappropriate - the website is completely independent of any business interests and the link is highly relevant. I will add the link again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.129.200 (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You have a COI as the owner and it does not meet with the requirements for ELs as given in WP:EL. Please do not re-add the link or you may get further warnings.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello there! Welcome back! I did see you flash up on my watchlist yesterday and so I was hoping to get in touch. I hope all is well.

Re Chester@Large, I concur with your findings. Yes its not the worst website that could be added to the page, but it's certainly not an ideal one, and I personally think it is inappropriate. The COI aside (which is relevant), it adds little value to a troubled page. I blocked the IP following your final warning though.

I have Chester watchlisted and so I'll monitor the situation.

It's great to see you back though. The project seems to have lost a bit of momentum of late, but I'm confident we can pick up the pace to pre-summer levels again. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Maltese language again

User:Mingeyqla has been reinserting the same POV's into the maltese article as the previous sockpuppets have (remember User:MagdelendaDiArco). It has previously denied to be one of the previous sockpuppetmasters, but has claimed to be "the one who first taught them to use open proxies" - styling himself as a sort of puppetmaster obi wan.(see User_talk:Maunus#User:Kalindoscopy). Anyway he should probably be blocked since he is clearly connected to the previous puppets either as a meat or sockpuppet and he circumvents the same consensus decisions as the others.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

At some point in the recent past (when I was out of town and not watching closely), a nonlinguist removed all the qualifying statements that had been carefully crafted under consensus on the Maltese Language talk page about "mixed language". The mixed language issue for Maltese is not a linguistic issue (linguists are united that Maltese is NOT a mixed language), but a nationalistic one that was adopted by one of the sock puppets. I want to reinsert the qualifying words in the "Classification" section so that no one gets the idea that any reputable linguist, closely following the precise definitions of "mixed language" or "creoloid", would place Maltese in those categories. (Taivo (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

Oh really? And have I at any point put into the article that Maltese is a mixed language? No. Bother to read what I have done before you speak. I am appalled with your ignorance on my actions. Mingeyqla (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope I haven't stepped on your toes, Ddstretch, but I removed the contested claims until a consensus emerges. They're scientifically invalid anyway; the only question is whether they're of sufficient social interest to include or counter. kwami (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's summarise here. The paragraph has been on the page in some form or another for months. You now make the decision entirely on your own, without any form of agreement from anyone on the talk page, to completely remove it? Who exactly do you think you are? WP:OWN. Mingeyqla (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. My talk page is not the place to perpetuate a discussion on the content. So, I must ask you to stop and take it to the most relevant place: the talk page for the article itself. I hope that is the end of it here. If not, more action may well be taken. (I hope people can see that this message is not directed at all who have commented here.)  DDStretch  (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Warrington (and other) vandalism

I was about to start reverting myself, but they seemed to be hitting a few articles at the same time. Paypwip (talk) 08:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. They are all walking on immediate very thin ice, as joint coordinated acts of vandalism are always more serious (hence the enhanced levels of warnings I've given most of them.)  DDStretch  (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the vandalism too and was norrowly beaten to reverting it. My guess is it's some school kids in an IT class, it'll be over soon and if they vandalise again they can be blocked. Nev1 (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That was my thought too, given the usernames and the articles being hit. No doubt an admin would be able to see a common IP address. Paypwip (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

British Isles and TharkunColl

Hi. I seem to recall (perhaps incorrectly, so excuse me if I am mistaken) that you have had previous dealings with the BI page and TharkunColl. You might like to have a look at the series of edits last night by him that deleted multiple references, various long-discussed pieces of text, etc. Snowded undid the changes, which were then re-inserted by an new-IP account, then again by a new user. I (editing as an IP, so trying to be delicate) have put the page back to a status before the whole shit-fest. The whole thing stinks, first TharkunColl editing out text that he knows has been the subject of LONG discussion and slow agreement, second the new accounts that jump up to support. Anyway, have a look. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

He has just reverted again (sigh) --Snowded TALK 09:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Rudheath

Re: your edit of Rudheath, I want to understand what I have done wrong with adding a link to TheHut.com, they are based in Rudheath which can be verified from any page on their site http://thehut.com. How is the line drawn between advertising and simply linking to an existing Wikipedia page? Is it the lack of references which is the problem?

I am not questioning the edit, just wanting to understand where I went wrong so I know for future reference, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peoplesrepublican (talk • contribs) 21:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)