User talk:DuncanHill/Archives/2016/February

Cornwall/England/UK

Duncan, you were kind enough to point out my error in leaving out the "UK" from, "Cornwall, England, UK," on a couple of edits I did. However, I have now been reported to admin for using "Cornwall, England, UK"!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_making_bulk_changes_against_consensus I would welcome your input here.

Many thanks Serpren (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the recent advice. learning as I go!

Craig.09:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpren (talk • contribs) 09:52, 29 July 2015

Ref Desk Follies of 2014

Hi, Duncan. Am I right in assuming the stuff on the ref desk talk page, and what got it started, are what prompted you to delete your user page? I'm sorry it had to come to that. Please go no further away. Your return to the ref desk after a long spell away was very welcome, and will continue to be so. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I'm pretty close to invoking right to vanish. I use my real name and location on Wikipedia and then the likes of Medeis and Dcmq (neither of whom use their real identities) seem to think it's ok to accuse me of lying, and neither of them have the decency to even attempt to answer my concerns, instead making their ridiculous "ex cathedra" pronouncements about my motives, character (accusing me of wanting barfight advice!), etc. DuncanHill (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Badoo (of which I had never heard till today) requires me to upload my photo in order to receive your message. I'm not really desirous of doing that, Duncan. Can you not just send me an email? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It sent me an email saying I'd left myself a message, and to upload a photo of me to read my message from me (which I hadn't sent in the first place....). I think best to ignore and delete anything from it in future! DuncanHill (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Re your vanishing: Don't let the actions of others dictate your decisions. Stay in control. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Duncan, I don't know what issues you've had, and really don't want to know or get involved, but just adding my vote to stick around. If for no other reason than getting an authoritative answer to your fascinating question on C. S. Forester's allusion.

One scholar I asked for help in answering your question is in his seventies or eighties, I think - please don't waste his time! Good questions are at least as valuable as good answers and your question made my day and, no doubt, his. We're counting on you to stick around. - Paulscrawl (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - it's those moments when a chance thought or phrase catches the interest of others that keep me coming back. DuncanHill (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

I thank you because your question made me smile (the last part) - also, your mongoose response is wonderful. Please stick around the Ref Desk, I come around much less than I used to because of the asinine drama that always suddenly seems to materialize, but you are quite a welcome addition (or, perhaps, a welcome return if you frequented there oft before).Phoenixia1177 (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

thankyou

thankyou for your help about the wester wall at the reference desk. It didn't realy answer my question though. Do you no anything else about this topic? The wikipedia article is vague saying only "Above that are 16–17 courses of small stones from the Mamluk period (Muslim, 13–16th century) and later" Naytz (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Naytz (talk · contribs) I think Moses Montefiore did try to buy the Western Wall at one time - but that's about it. The Moses Montefiore Endowment might have more information - could be worth your contacting them. Sorry I couldn't help more. DuncanHill (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

new answer, new question

Heads up - Forester scholar answered your question re: [| Dotage for a fee]

But I'm not done - see the work I;ve done with Swift.

My question - any way to keep that topic from scrolling off into archives automatically (like tomorrow?) -- Paulscrawl 09:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Paulscrawl (talk · contribs) I've seen, and approve of, what you've done with Swift - thank you! Alas I don't think there is a way to stop it archiving. It can still be posted to in the archives but it won't show up on watchlists of the main page. DuncanHill (talk) 09:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that clarification. I;m too tired to think about it anymore, or even type, but was concerned about keeping that thread alive, I;m crashing, you solve it. Thanks Paulscrawl (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

David Lloyd George

I just want to thank you for all the work you have just done on the article on David Lloyd George. It is obvious that you know the subject matter, and your edits are excellent. I would just like to ask you about two different issues:

1) You consolidated some information about the Agriculture Act, which is fine, but the resulting sentence (as the original sentence) contains both "whilst" and "while". I wonder if there were not a way to avoid using both:

"In education, teachers’ salaries were standardised (in 1921) through the Burnham Scale, whilst the Agriculture Act 1920 provided for farm labourers to receive a minimum wage while the state continued to guarantee the prices of farm produce until 1921.

I'm not sure the second half of the sentences needs to be subordinated with "whilst" (particularly since (a) the Agriculture Act apparently passed a year before teachers' salaries were standardised, and (b) the two clauses are not parallel in structure. Do you see a need for the subordination of the second clause? If there is a good reason for it, and you want to retain the "whilst", then perhaps the final clause could be changed to "with the state continuing to guarantee...".

2) I started removing spaces around em-dashes (see WP:EMDASH, but then later in the article I saw a number of en-dashes, properly with spaces on either side of each. (En-dashes should have a space before and after them while em-dashes should have no space either side.) The WP:MOS on this at WP:EMDASH says that either em-dashes or en-dashes can be used but that it should be consistent through the article. The choice is yours. It's a matter of preference. Which do you prefer? Personally, I prefer the spaced en-dash. I think with the dash not right up against the word it makes the sentence easier to read. But I'll leave the choice to you since you've done so much work. (If the en-dash is used, a no-break-space can be added before it so that if it happens to end up at the end of a line, the dash will be at the end of the line and not at the beginning of the next line.) After you decide, I'll be glad to go through and change whatever needs to be changed, unless you want to go ahead and do it.

Just for your information, you might look at my comment at User talk:Rothorpe#David Lloyd George, just made yesterday but not acted upon. I'm glad you got to the article before I did. :) CorinneSD (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @CorinneSD: - as to (1) I'll have another look at it, sounds like you make a good point. As for (2) I steer well clear of emdashes and the like (I always have to look them up) and AFAIK I just do space-space (is that space endash space?). I certainly never use no-break-space as I don't seem to have a key for that! (Not really up on typesetting conventions, I just type so it looks right to me).

And I'll wander over and look at your comment from yesterday.

And thank you for the kind words, much appreciated :) DuncanHill (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are two ways to insert a no-break-space. One is to just type the ampersand (&) followed by nbsp; . For the other way, you first have to be sure you have all the Wiki markup items visible at the bottom of the page, below the editing window (when you are in Editing Mode). If you don't see them, then click on the little black arrow in the little box at the lower left-hand corner (next to the word "Insert"). A little menu will open up. Click on "Wiki markup". Then you should see all the items. These are things you can use. You will see ampersand nbsp; . First left-click where in the text in your edit window you want to add it, then click on it. (If you still can't get the items to appear, you might have to enable Wik-Ed first; see below.)

You might find it helpful to add two gadgets. (They won't cause you trouble, and if for some reason they do, or you don't find them helpful, you can de-select them.) One is Wik-Ed and the other is Twinkle. For Twinkle, read the basic instructions; you have to be careful how you use it. But if you want to wait on that, at least enable Wik-Ed. At the top of your page, you will see "Watchlist", "Contributions", etc. You'll see "Preferences". Click on that. Near the top, going across, are some tabs. Click on "Gadgets". Then in Browsing, you can select Twinkle, and in Editing, you can select Wik-Ed. Then save your changes (at the bottom of the page). Wik-Ed will give you more tools for editing.

I use no-break-space only occasionally: before an en-dash (if I feel like spending the time to enter the no-break-space; you don't really have to), and after the first initial in a person's name if there are two initials, like "H. L. Mencken". Then you avoid having the "H." separated from the "L." if it should happen to fall at the end of a line. (There should be a space between those initials.) If you don't put the no-break-space, it's no big deal. And any other time that there should be a space between two things and you want to be sure they don't become separated.

Why don't you create a user page? Then your user name won't be red. It will be blue. You can put almost anything you want on it. Read some other editors' user pages to get ideas. Also read WP:USERPAGE and WP:User page design center. CorinneSD (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Had a userpage for years. Got rid of it recently. Rather not go into it now.

Anyway, as for the emdashes I'll leave those to people who understand their usage better. DuncanHill (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm following your edits with interest. They're all good. What would you say to a change from "operated" to "were operating" in this sentence:

"Haig believed that a Flanders Offensive had good chance of clearing the Belgian Coast, from which German submarines and destroyers operated (a popular goal with politicians), and that victory at Ypres “might quite possibly lead to (German) collapse". Cheers, CorinneSD (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sounds good to me. DuncanHill (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I made the change. At the same time, I also changed "Belgian Coast" to "Belgian coast". I didn't see the need for "coast" to be capitalized. I found another sentence that needs work. It's near the end of the section David Lloyd George#Passchendaele:

"At the final meeting of the War Policy Committee on 11 October 1917, Lloyd George authorised the offensive to continue, but warning of failure in three weeks' time".

I think "but warning of failure in three weeks' time" is not grammatically correct. Either "warning" should be changed to "warned", or "but" should be deleted, yielding a participial phrase:

• At the final meeting of the War Policy Committee on 11 October 1917, Lloyd George authorised the offensive to continue but warned of failure in three weeks' time.

• At the final meeting of the War Policy Committee on 11 October 1917, Lloyd George authorised the offensive to continue, warning of failure in three weeks' time.

Which do you prefer? I think the first one is clearer. CorinneSD (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree about coast. "...but warned of failure.." seems right to me. "...authorised the offensive to continue.." sounds a little strained to me - almost as if he was giving the offensive itself his permission to carry on. I thought about "authorised the continuation of the offensive" but I don't like continuation as a word - too long winded. Any ideas? DuncanHill (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think a lot depends on what he actually did at that meeting, and what was going on at the time. The usual phrase with "authorised" is "authorised the offensive" -- before it starts. Once the offensive has started, is a specific instance of authorization needed? Perhaps "allowed the offensive to continue", or "made it clear that he was allowing the offensive to continue, but at the same time warned of failure in three weeks' time"?

I actually came here to ask you about something else. It's in the fourth paragraph of David Lloyd George#Postwar social reforms. I see two instances of a misspelling of the word "dependent". I checked in Merriam-Webster on-line. There is no word spelled "dependant". I was going to correct them, but the first instance is in the name of an act. I can't imagine that the word would be misspelled in the name of an act. Do you want to check that? CorinneSD (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hansard has "Dependants", see here. Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, 1983, has "dependant (also -ent)" for "one who depends on another for support or otherwise". It looks like -ant is more traditional in British English for the noun, and -ent for the adjective, but Chambers does allow either for both. OED also has either, with -ant listed first in this sense and says "Etymology - French dépendant adjective and noun, properly present participle of dépendre to depend v.1 From the 18th cent. often (like the adjective) spelt dependent, after Latin (both forms being entered by Johnson); but the spelling -ant still predominates in the noun: compare defendant, assistant." The Act is not on the Statute Law Database as long repealed, so can't easily check the actual text as enacted. British Acts tend to use very conservative language. DuncanHill (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks for checking. Americans use only "dependent" for both noun and adjective. In the name of the act, it is a noun, but in the phrase right after it, "for the wives and dependant children", wouldn't you say that is an adjective and, according to the information you found, should thus be spelled "dependent"? CorinneSD (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well spotted - and Hansard, in its reports of the debates on the bill, uses dependent in this sense see here. DuncanHill (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you see my reply to your question "Any ideas?" regarding "authorised...", just above my question about "dependant", above?

I just wondered why you used bold face for these names:

"Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor and Viscount Gwynedd".

Is it because they are alternate/additional names of David Lloyd George? I know bold is used at the beginning of an article, but is that standard practice even when the names are in the middle of an article? It just looks a little strange to me, that's all. CorinneSD (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Authorised - I think you're right that we need to know more about what was actually said at the meeting to work that one out - don't have anything to hand but will have a look about to see if I can find anything.

Did I bold those names? I may just have inherited the bolding. Bolding in the middle of an article is only usually used when the bolded phrase is the title of a redirect to there, but that is not the case here - we have an article Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, and Viscount Gwynedd correctly redirects to that. DuncanHill (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

A day or so ago I had made a minor copy-edit to that sentence from which you removed the word "first". At the time, I was wondering why that sentence was there at all. First of all, I think "he" is a little ambiguous (David Lloyd George, or his father?) and second, why mention someone whom his father met when D. L. G. was a young man? Perhaps it is not his father who made the acquaintance of Dr. James Martineau but D. L. G., and perhaps Dr. Martineau placed an important role in his life later on, so "first made the acquaintance would make sense, and the role Dr. Martineau played in D. L. G.'s life should be in the article. CorinneSD (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No mention of LG or his father in either our article on Martineau or the ODNB entry for him, and no mention of Martineau in the ODNB article on LG, nor in the LG article in Duncan Brack's Dictionary of Liberal Biography. DuncanHill (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Right, followed the ref for the Martineau thing - look here. It is the father, not LG, and all it says is "Apparently through the school [i.e. Hope Street Sunday Schools, Liverpool], he made the acquaintance of the Unitarian minister James Martineau." DuncanHill (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

All right. Thank you for the information and link. I still don't see why it's important to include in an article about Lloyd George. CorinneSD (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It could probably come out - I certainly wouldn't object! DuncanHill (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I wonder what the original reason was for including it. Perhaps, somewhere, there is mention of L. G. meeting him, also. CorinneSD (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you want to undo the latest edit for being unsourced? I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to reword a sentence just before that. CorinneSD (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918

A heads-up; Ursula Williams Graemp (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I had her in the back of my mind but couldn't remember her name! DuncanHill (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

David Lloyd George 2

I saw your discussion with Snowded a few days ago regarding how to name the various acts in the article on David Lloyd George, and I recall your saying that the year that the act was passed was really part of the name of the act. I have no way to know if that is correct or not so I simply deferred to your obviously greater knowledge. However, I would like to draw your attention to something I saw in an article that I believe I got to from a link in the Lloyd George article, that is, the article on Nonconformists. In the third paragraph in the section Nonconformist#Origins is a sentence beginning:

"The term "dissenter" came into use particularly after the Act of Toleration (1689),..."

I see that the year that the act passed is in parentheses after the name of the act and is not linked, so it appears in black print. If you look at it in Edit Mode, you will see that "Act of Toleration 1689" is the actual link and the title of the article to which it is linked, but readers see only "Act of Toleration (1689)".

I don't want to tell you what to do -- you clearly know a great deal more about this subject than I do -- but I just wanted to show this to you as a possible alternative way of presenting each act (and there are many, as you know, in the Lloyd George article). Just a personal opinion, but I think the name of the act is slightly more important than the year in which it was enacted. Displaying the act (will show in blue if linked) with the year in parentheses (will show in black), makes the name of the act stand out and very slightly minimizes the year. I just wondered what you thought about this. CorinneSD (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, the normal short title of an Act is "Foofoo Act 2014" (a comma between the word act and the year used to be normal, but not for some years now). Acts will also have a long title, but that is rarely used except in specific legal circumstances - an act cannot be amended to go beyond the purposes given in the long title. It also seems odd to me to pipe a link, and then add in brackets afterwards the date which was part of the unpiped link - as in your example. There have also been many Education Acts in the UK - the government which passed the Act of 1902 also passed the Act of 1901 (Education Act 1901), and the Education Act 1901 (Renewal) Act 1902, so to not include the year could be confusing.

As for the Act of 1689 - it is usually called the Toleration Act 1689, not the Act of Toleration. One could get away with calling it just the Toleration Act as there haven't been (as far as I recall) any other Toleration Acts (I'm not conviced by the claims made on Wikipedia for the Occasional Conformity Act being known as the Toleration Act - never heard it called that. Compare the Act of Settlement - formally one should include the 1701, but as it's the only Act of Settlement we can get away without it.

To sum up my position:

1) The name of the act is the Education Act 1902, and the act itself says it may be cited as such (all acts will include a statement of how they should be cited).

2) It is confusing not to include the year, especially for education acts as there have been so many of them (including at least three by the Balfour govt., and I think about a dozen in force currently, and rather more if you put something in brackets between "Education" and "Act").

3) To use piping to conceal the year in the link and then put the year in brackets afterwards just makes more work, adds nothing to accuracy or readability, and seems at best pointless.

To sum up my summing up - it is easier, quicker, and more accurate, to use the short title for Acts, and the short title always includes a year. DuncanHill (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Would that mean that you recommend changing the instance in the article on Nonconformists? CorinneSD (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Westminster Gazette, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Evening News. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:RM Link

Hey Duncan. Noting your edit summary just now, it is. When you try to move a page, and cannot, you get a bright red error message that says in part:

The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid.

Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't. I got a bright red message, but not the link. DuncanHill (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: the message I got was "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: A page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name." No links to anywhere, or even unlinked pagenames to help. DuncanHill (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I ended up here from the WP:AN thread. Do you, by chance, have the language set to something other than en - English in your preferences? A large number of the MediaWiki messages have been customized, but you can only see the modified versions if you are using the generic English setting. Don't ask me why it's that way, but that's how it works, apparently. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I use British English in my preferences. I would assume it's because Wikipedia is designed for use by Americans, and everyone else is an afterthought (or, everyone else is assumed not to need as much help as Americans do - one or the other). DuncanHill (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, That's it, I've reproduced the error when set to British English.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you know how to fix this? (Obviously, only an admin would be capable, but other users may know how to do it.) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Not the faintest idea, I'm afraid. DuncanHill (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Was Charles II proclaimed King of Great Britain by the Parliament of Scotland on February 6, 1649 or February 5,1649?

It is not unknown for the ONDB to get it wrong. I have two requests for them to fix information in two different articles (by different authors) to be reconciled because they contradict each other on detailed point such as this. Why not send the ODNB a message and see how long it take to fix it. When they do you can tell people down the pub that you found an error in the ODNB and it took them ... years to fix it :-)

In this case I used (and cited) the Scottish Parliament's own database which shows the content of the primary source to check and date the proclamation. Luckily unlike the English Parliament official records, there is no confusion over the year as Scotland had already adopted 1st of January as the start of year (while contemporary English Parliamentary documents were still dated 1648 for events between Jan and March 25). -- PBS (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Fox Family

Thanks for the tip. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 10:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Edits like this

Further information: User_talk:PBS § Please don't

23:46, 13 September 2014‎ and 00:16, 14 September 2014‎, There is no way that in half an hour there are going to be many link to the new section header, and the benefits of keeping the conversation in one section far outweigh your concerns. Either the editor did not read the section that was already there or more likely was trying to make a point, so take you choice carelessness or pointy, there was no reason to have another section. -- PBS (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I always reply to a comment on my talk page by replying on the talk page of the other person. If I start a conversation on a talk page and the editor replies there, then I reply there too. I do not ask or inst that they reply on mine and I find it surprising that you consider it appropriate to demand how I reply to posting on my talk page. -- PBS (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh! I see now. "I disagree with your reply on my talk page ..." You were not disagreeing with me replying on your talk page, you were disagreeing with my reply and it was incidental where it was posted. I had mistakenly inferred that you disagreed with me replying on your talk page (something that was reinforced in my reading of the post because of the content of the rest of the sentence).-- PBS (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Civility

In my opinion your edit summary here is in direct violation of WP:ESDONTS. I hope that on reflection you will agree that this is true, if so, you can either ask me not remove the summary, or ask another administrator to do so. -- PBS (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I certainly shall not ask anyone to remove the summary - having been subjected to far worse from admins and been told that edit summaries can't/won't be changed I don't see why I should crawl to you. DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:ESDONTS -- PBS (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You'd go to ANI for that? DuncanHill (talk)

• Closed as not meeting the criteria for redaction Closing comments by admin. DuncanHill (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

The edit summary "has been warned" is a bit odd. Do you suspect some nefarious motive on my part? But a sincere thanks for signing for me, I do forget on occasion. μηδείς (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Request moved

I moved your request to Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#My_userpage_User:DuncanHill. NE Ent 00:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Honeysuckle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: your messages

Listen sunshine, I know far more about Wikipedia policies than you do, so don't try and bullshit me with empty threats. If you got a problem, take it to ANI. 82.41.197.51 (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

*message

*try to

*you have got

And Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Guideline. DuncanHill (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a direct quote from the Wikiproject - "no-one actively changes articles that don't comply with this format unless making other substantive edits to the article". The user I have been reverting has violated that directive, not to mention that an ANI discussion (reopened here) brought up opposition to the mass adding of "Cornwall, England, UK" to articles. No false accusations of vandalism have been made. Cheers. 82.41.197.51 (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no point doing mass reverts. The wording Serpren changed to is the preferred wording, you are changing to a deprecated one. Serpren's edits could not reasonable be called vandalism, neither could mine. You have also falsely accused me of making "politically motivated" edits which is just bollocks. No how about you do something actually useful - or would you rather make people think that you are an ignorant, dishonest, twat? DuncanHill (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, did you bother to read the notice at the top of the page? If I have messaged you on your talk page then it is easier for everyone if you reply there, rather than splitting the conversation between two pages. DuncanHill (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Serpren was not blocked for vandalism, he was blocked for ignoring the mass changes consensus regarding placenames. You are effectively doing the same thing, and that's no better than what the IP is doing. That said, the IP is right about the Cornish consensus in that it does not allow for simply enforcing this wording everywhere. Serpren was stopped from doing it by blocking, and it also applies to everyone else. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware that Serpren was not blocked for vandalism, thank you. The IP has come along and started mass-reverting edits that are two months old and contain the preferred wording. The IP is also falsely calling editors vandals, and falsely accusing editors of political motivation. They are also doing exactly the changes which you, Bretonbanquet, want done.

Once an article has the preferred wording, it is unhelpful (to say the least) to remove that wording for no other reason than that it was done in a way you don't like. DuncanHill (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware that they contain the "preferred wording" (not preferred by the large number of editors who think it utterly ridiculous), but that wording was inserted against consensus. I am also well aware that the IP is calling people vandals (he told me to fuck off, after all, he is no friend of mine), and he has (as Serpren did) accused others of politically motivated editing. You are incorrect in your clairvoyant assumption regarding "what I want done". FYI, what I want is for editors to follow the clear consensus on bulk changes. If I wanted the "preferred" wording removed, it would not be because it was done in a way I don't like for any political reason, it would be because it was done against consensus, and in a way that got the perpetrator rightly blocked. Twice. Perhaps you and the various IPs might bear that in mind. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh go away, you've not said anything constructive on this issue for years, and your thinly veiled threat is just sad. DuncanHill (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

All very interesting.Serpren (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Look into the calming eyes...

How do I say what I want without appearing rude or forceful? Never mind, you know what I mean. I just hope you don't dislike cats...

 —SMALLJIM  20:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I love cats, thank you :) DuncanHill (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

RE: Our colloquy

For You To Read but only if you didn't read my last reply and are interested in doing so. The case is in the holding pen, now anyway. Yours faithfully, Quis separabit? 02:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Cornwall

• The conversation started on User talk:QueenCake with this diff

I am fully aware of that guideline and of the various edit wars concerning Cornwall and England. However I do not see how the guideline is relevant for the article in question (Music of Cornwall). This wording is meant to be used in the lead of geographic articles, not every single article involving Cornwall, regardless of whether or not it is actually necessary to specify the location of Cornwall. Furthermore, Cornwall, England, UK has been perceived as historically Celtic is simply a poorly constructed sentence, and that alone is enough of a reason to revise it. If it is important for readers of Music of Cornwall to know that Cornwall is a county within England within the United Kingdom, it can be done after the opening three words. QueenCake (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The same reasoning goes for Cornish Language Partnership. Cornwall, England, UK should not be used at the beginning or middle of a sentence. If it's not poor grammar, it definitely reduces readability. QueenCake (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I've always said "Cornwall, England, UK" was an ugly formulation, but it was the least-worst anyone could come up with that upset both Cornish and English nationalists equally, and also didn't overly confuse the numerous idiots who can't click on wikilinks to find out what or where Cornwall is. DuncanHill (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is rather ugly. Either way, that convention doesn't take precedent over bad grammar. If "Cornwall, England, UK" has to be added in, it doesn't have to be on the first mention of Cornwall in the article. QueenCake (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Ref desk obscenity

You just reverted me, calling me a troll, but did you read the OP's last, unsigend, comment:

STOP BEING SO RUDE PLEASE. I'm taking an online distance course, and this explains why i'm so far. Also, I did not ask anyone to do my homework, and all i asked was to help me find some online resources, (ebooks, websites etc). So if you can't help me, stop saying SHIT ! and also, paying people to do my homework is unethical, and i'd never do it. Good day to y' all.

I suggest a less knee-jerk reaction on your part. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I had read it just after it was posted. It does not meat any reasonable definition of obscenity that I can think of. I suggest a less prudish attitude on your part. DuncanHill (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

And I call you a troll because so many of your edits seem intended to do nothing more than stir things up. DuncanHill (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Just popping round to give you a +1 out there on the ref desk. Ignore the haters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Weirdness at "The Rain in Spain"

Hi Duncan. I've just restored the proper order of posts in this thread at the Language desk. I couldn't for the life of me understand what had got them so badly out of kilter, including parts of posts interpolated right inside other posts and others randomly relocated, until I tracked down the offending edit. As far as I can tell, the only part of your edit that was intentional on your part was the question about "suicided". The usual explanation for other strange-looking occurrences is a clash between 2 editors editing the same thread at the same time, but that doesn't look like the case here, unless the other editor was a vandal. Just for your info, and if you can shed any light on this, I'd be a happy man. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jack - I noticed your restoration on my watchlist and was just looking at the history myself. I have no idea how that happened, I didn't get an edit conflict notice (but I do know that sometimes edit conflicts happen without a notice). Thank you for spotting it and fixing it. DuncanHill (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Advice for younger editors

An edit of mine was reverted on the above page See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Guidance_for_younger_editors#Second_discussion

I removed what could be the worst possible advice for a young person on the internet, which is to privately contact an unknown (to them) person for help. I notice that you made the same point. Perhaps you would like to comment. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Cop this, young Duncan

"Dreaming the same Impossible Dream"		The Like-Minded Persons' Club
		For displaying here common sense and uncommon good taste by agreeing with me or saying something I would have said if only I'd had the presence of mind, I hereby bestow upon you Provisional Membership of the Like-Minded Persons' Club. To qualify for Full Membership, simply continue to agree with me in all matters for at least the next 12 months. (Disagreements are so vulgar, don't you think? And, as Bruce Chatwin said, Arguments are fatal. One always forgets what they are about)

"Eugghh", indeed. I presume that was in response to this heart-breaking cry for sanity.

Unfortunately, you're not the first ever recipient of this award. And not even the first. But carry on lurking.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, thanks for correcting my syntax blunder just now on the ref desk. For the record, I was trying to avoid reverting the hat and stirring up more edit warring, so when I left my comment I thought I'd change it away from the "DO NOT MODIFY" "hat" template while still leaving it collapsed with the "cot". SemanticMantis (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Well it left all the following questions still collapsed inside it - something I was fixing but got an edit conflict with you changing the hat. DuncanHill (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I see it was Medeis who fucked it up, so apologies to you. Might have known the RefDesks' Hatter-in-Chief wouldn't actually be competent in hatting. DuncanHill (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

For my reference

Continued from User talk:JoeSperrazza#Don't bring me into your fights.

All you had to do @JoeSperrazza: was strike my name from your comment as you had offered. That would have been an end to it. DuncanHill (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Look, seriously, I'm sorry you are unhappy. I repeat, I was asked to disengage there, after I made my offer, and I have. You added your comment (with yet another personal attack at me, I might add), so it is abundantly clear you disagree, were offended, and think I'm a jerk. OK? Go strike out your name, I won't object, nor will anyone. I am not going to edit there again and it has nothing to do with you. OK? Again, I am doing you the courtesy of responding, but I don't see why you can't even understand that, as I originally noted, I acted in good faith assuming, from your brief comment, that you had a concern with the editor's work. That I said so does not make me a liar, etc. Nore does your continued series of attacks serve any purpose of improving the encyclopedia. Good grief. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I pointed out that you should not have included me, you offered to strike your comment, I accepted your offer. All you had to do then was carry through with your offer. That would have been it - I would then have thought that you were a reasonable editor who occasionally makes mistakes. Instead - well, let's just say that I don't now think that. DuncanHill (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Terrye Teverson

Hi DuncanHill, I thought your name sounded familiar and have realised that I had previously posted to your talkpage. We have just been discussing things at Talk:Robin Teverson, Baron Teverson, in which you said that you don't agree with this sort of thing (following) being added to the Personal life section:

Terrye Jones

Teverson married Terrye Lynn Jones in 2006. Jones, born in 1952, is a company director based in Cornwall. She stood for election as the Liberal Democrat candidate for Falmouth and Camborne in 1992 and 1997 and for Truro and Falmouth in 2010.

I consider this to be an acceptable degree of coverage of a partner in an article. Part of it was previously in the article but was deleted by Frinton100 which I thought was odd. Perhaps now that you have seen what I want to put, you might change your mind. My reason for wanting to have a heading is connected with the article Falmouth and Camborne (UK Parliament constituency). In that article, I had created the link [Robin Teverson, Baron Teverson#Terrye Lynn Jones|Terrye Lynn Jones] so that readers would be able to access additional information about that candidate. It is quite normal for articles to be linked in this way. The Baron Teverson article didn't have any headings so I decided to create some so that the link would go to the right part of the article rather than the top, avoiding it appearing like an erronous link. There is some discussion about this at Talk:Falmouth and Camborne (UK Parliament constituency). Frinton100 and myself also disagree about how candidates should be presented in this article. Frinton100 has removed completely the Terrye Lynn Jones link between these two articles. This issue has thus become caught up in a wider issue and both Frinton100 and myself have ceased making further edits to the constituency page until that issue has been resolved. I consider the above section headed Terrye Jones if added would be an improvement to the Baron Teverson article. I also think restoring the Terrye Jones link to the constituency article will also improve things for the reader. Graemp (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Glynn House

Hi Duncan, Ive just started the stub page for Glynn House, as you suggested. Please feel free to add to it if you have the time Talskiddy (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Talskiddy: DuncanHill (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Popinjay. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Suffering on the St. Austell.

Per this, I'm not sure I follow. How does siltation affect a tin port's operational ability? That sentence seemed to be talking about the river "suffering" to me. Spare a clue? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

As the port silted up, it could not take such big vessels. The sentence is about Pentewan - "The then tiny fishing port of Pentewan...suffered from silting..." .

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flora and fauna of Cornwall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lanner. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and some background

Thank you for your edits here.
It looks like User:GammaCepheus001 is yet another incarnation of persistent nuisance User:Jonas Poole, who has a number of bees in his bonnet and a complete inability to work together with anyone else.
He (or possibly even, she) generally wombles through the project changing things to fit his version of the truth until someone objects, at which he will resort to edit warring and personal insult to get his own way: This usually continues until he pisses off so many people that he gets banned indefinitely, at which point he presumably switches to yet another account.
Anyway, I just thought I would let you know some of the background of this particular spat; I had Sholto Douglas on my watchlist from the last time he tried this stunt, but must have missed it a fortnight ago. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
PS: Now for some tidying up! Wonderful!! Xyl 54 (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Xyl 54:, I had the feeling when I first encountered him that he would get blocked sooner rather than later! By pure coincidence I was reading Catastrophes and Lesser Calamities by Tony Hallam at the time. It was published in 2004 by a reputable publisher (OUP), and that uses the spelling in z for Spitzbergen, so I think claims that it is obsolete may be jumping the gun. DuncanHill (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Burgess Shale type preservation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anoxia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Piped links

You are misunderstanding the MOS principles on piped links. I have, therefore, corrected your editing on the Peter Ball article in accordance with these principles. Anglicanus (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Englatar8888/William IV

User:Englatar8888/William IV, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Englatar8888/William IV and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Englatar8888/William IV during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I think all I did was move it to userspace. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edward Montagu-Stuart-Wortley-Mackenzie, 1st Earl of Wharncliffe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baron Wharncliffe. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

My edit to reference desk

Sorry, "does not appear to be constructive" does not indicate the problem with the edit. Can you be more specific? 94.5.15.59 (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Please explain ...

this. General Ization ^Talk 23:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No idea at all how that happened! DuncanHill (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I've done it before myself. Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 00:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That's why I avoid using tablets while on wiki. In their small screens one can press any button by mistake. Sometimes I go to pages and I have no idea how I got there. Dr. K. 00:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

What's particularly embarrassing is that I wasn't on a tablet or a touchpad, but using a desktop with a proper mouse! DuncanHill (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It happens that way also. Just not as often. I am thankful for that. :) Dr. K. 13:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought my touchpad was relatively safe for browsing due to its larger size. Obviously not. Dr. K. 16:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Carl Linnaeus

Re: "Why are you changing the links from Carolus Linnaeus to Carl Linnaeus" Because the page was renamed Carolus Linnaeus to Carl Linnaeus some time ago and redirects are to be avoided if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simuliid (talk • contribs) 12:08, 2 November 2015‎

Attempting to add cites, refs, and updated infor to the Wiki page (EBASI organization for which I am Chair) at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Bouchet_Abdus_Salam_Institute

I have been attempting to update the Wiki page (EBASI organization for which I am Chair) at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Bouchet_Abdus_Salam_Institute by adding verifiable cites (when I started, it indicated the page needed cites since February, 2011), refs, and other current (2015) information It seems as though another user Bgwhite just reverts just about everything back to an much earlier time. I have thanked Bgwhite...he pointed out errors I performed using Bold and leaving a ]] in my updates. He keeps only one ref that I introduced.

I do not know what to do. Perhaps I am not doing something correctly. I am putting the source material below I am attempting to update below and also I will put the four tilda for signing purposes. Thank you in advance for your help. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Edward Bouchet Abdus Salam Institute was founded by Professor Abdus Salam in 1988. The institute recognizes the historical importance of Dr. Edward Bouchet in American History and the hopes and dreams of Professor Abdus Salam.

History of the Institute

On 30 September 1988 [1], the Edward Bouchet Abdus Salam Institute (EBASI) [then known as the Edward A. Bouchet-ICTP Institute (EABI)] was created by the late Nobel Laureate and Founding Director of the International Centre for Theoretical Physics. [now known as the Abdus Salam International Center for Theoretical Physics (Abdus Salam ICTP) Professor Abdus Salam.

The Institute was named in honor of Edward A. Bouchet, who became in 1876 (Yale) the first African-American and the first known person of African descent to earn the Ph.D. degree in Physics. The Council is composed of African members, American members, an administrative Officer, and one ICTP Representative. It was in 1998 that the name of the Institute was changed from its original name to its current name (EBASI) in order to honor the late Professor Abdus Salam.

EBASI missions include:

• Providing mechanisms for synergistic scientific and technical collaborations between African and American physical scientists, engineers, and technologists.
• Enhancing the impact of science and technology on the sustainable development of the countries on the African continent
• Increasing the technical manpower pool working in Africa today by facilitating the training of Ph.D. students from African universities
• Creating close contacts on a World Wide basis with universities, governmental, private sector institutions and organizations, and foundations which facilitate and advance EBASI objectives
• Initiating any other activities that advance EBASI objectives

The First Council of the Bouchet Institute of the ICTP was initiated via a joint proposal [2] by Professor Joseph Johnson and Dr.Jean-Pierre Ezin and Professor Abdus Salam who were also organizers of the First E. Bouchet International Conference on Physics and Technology [3], held at the ICTP from 9–11 June 1988. The Members of the First Council were: From USA——1. Dr. Charles Brown [4] (AT&T Labs, Georgia); 2. Dr. Anthony Johnson (AT&T Labs, Nev Jersey); 3. Professor Joseph Johnson (The City College, CUNY); 4. Professor Ronald Mickens (Atlanta University); 5. Dr. Milton Slaughter (Los Alamos National Laboratory); From Africa: ——1. Professor Francis Allotey (U.S.T. Kumasy, Ghana); 2. Professor James Ezeilo (University of NIqerla, Nsukka); 3. Professor Jean-Pierre Ezin (Universite Nationale du Benin,Cotonou); 4. Professor Mohamed H. A. Hassan (TWAS. Trieste, Italy); 5. Dr. Leonard Shayo (University of Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania); and ICTP Representative Professor Gailleno Denardo. The EBASI Administrative Officer was Prof. Aakhut E. Bak (Morehouse College).

Executive Committee Members of the First Council were: F. Allotey, G. Denardo, J.P. Ezin, A. Johnson, J. Johnson, L. Shayo, and M. Slaughter. The first EBASI Chair was Professor Charles S. Brown. The current Chair is Professor Milton D. Slaughter Later, Profs. Sekazi Mtingwa, Kennedy J. Reed, and James C. Turner, Jr. were appointed as American Council Members while Prof. Aba Andam (first female EBASI Council Member) and Prof. Ahmadou Wagué [5] were appointed as African Council Members.

Memorandum of Understanding

• The Edward Bouchet Abdus Salam Institute (EBASI) and the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) formalizing joint synergistic cooperation in scientific and technical collaborations among physical scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and technologists from America and Europe and their counterparts from developing countries, especially Africa. The MoU was signed on 11 February 2009 by ICTP Director K.R. Sreenivasan and EBASI Chairman Professor Milton D. Slaughter.

See also

• Abdus Salam
• Edward Bouchet
• Bibliographies, EBASI Initiating Document and Constitution, Details of the First EBASI–ICTP Conference

External links

• Official website
• EBASI and ICTP Meet in Trieste in 2000 to layout a broad agenda
• EBASI and ICTP Sign a Memorandum of Understanding in 2009.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Slaughtsphysics (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

References

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

-458 Fahrenheit comes from Wired article

Yes, that is what Wired said, and I think the New York Times, although I ran past my quota this month. Thank you for the conversion. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)