User talk:DuncanHill/Archives/2010/January

Organization preferred by Duncan Hill
were you trying to say another organisation in this? If not, that's okay too. Simply south (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I meant me. DuncanHill (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Simply south (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Jenner
Though I'm the editor and publisher of the book, it's a serious book and a serious contribution to the Revival: if you look at the link to the page about the book, you can see from the preface how the revision interprets Jenner's work. Should this not be noteworthy? The book launch is at Waterstones in Truru on 29 January. -- Evertype·✆ 14:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Best wishes for the launch. Unfortunately, I do not see how a link to a promotional page about your edition contributes to the article, which already has a link to Jenner's book at Project Gutenberg. I'd have no objections to a link to the text of your edition (but that would be harmful to your interests), and I am sure that your edition will be of use to editors writing about Jenner and the Cornish language and revival. DuncanHill (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand. The text of the revised edition which is not identical to that of the first edition. It's a revision, after all. (Jenner's estate is glad about it, indeed.) Many articles on the Wikipedia refer to printed books, including their ISBNs. I was going to add a paragraph to the article describing "In 2010 a new addition of Jenner's Handbook was published..." and outlining some of the differences. -- Evertype·✆ 14:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is better continued on the Jenner page. -- Evertype·✆ 14:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Frank Hopkins
His article does not show his connection with Cornwall but has this "I have seen it written that he came from St Columb Major in Cornwall, but not sure if he was born there." Could you perhaps see what DNB says about his birthplace.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the cowboy or the sailor? ODNB has the sailor and says he was born in Wallington in Surrey. DuncanHill (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Signature
I don't think that we should clutter up that thread with the debate about my signature, so I thought I'd leave you a message here. As far as I am aware, my signature is fully compliant with the relevant set of standards, in that it is of an appropriate length, not unduly large or flashy and contains several links to various areas of my user-space. I am not aware of how a small segment of randomly-changing text is "confusing", and I have never received any complaints about this before.

If you wish to have the guidline altered so that it excludes signatures such as mine, a Request for Comment would probably be best. If you think that my signature is not, in fact, acceptable, then you should open a Request for Comment on my conduct, and if that fails to produce the response you want, there is always the option of seeking formal arbitration. Best, ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  ballotbox  ─╢ 17:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The point I was trying to make (which I had thought was obvious) is that to me Dave's signature is no more disruptive than yours, and Dave's response to your concerns no less helpful than your response to mine. I do think it's a bit poor that you want another editor's sig discussed on the noticeboard but not your own. That said, I really can't be bothered anymore with this. DuncanHill (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My signature is compliant with the policy/guideline, and his was not (due to the presence of blinking text). Therefore, there is no legitimate grounds to discuss mine. Your personal view – that there is no difference between them – is irrelevant to this. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  without portfolio  ─╢ 17:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So why on earth did you bother asking? DuncanHill (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was interested, as I clearly stated at the beginning of my question on WP:AN. This talkpage thread, however, is not a question—it was me advising you on how to pursue my signature should you so wish. You have indicated that you do not so wish: thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  ballotbox  ─╢ 17:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Th e T hi ng Vandalize me 15:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wuhwuzdat
It appears that despite other editors' opinions, is unwilling to reconsider his actions with regards to User:Amanda.nelson12. Would you be willing to certify a WP:RFC/U if this continues? --RexxS (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No - not because I think it shouldn't happen (it should), but because I can't cope with the levels of stress that would result. His behaviour and attitude is reprehensible, but I can't fight that battle at the moment. Best wishes DuncanHill (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's perfectly understandable, and I'd never wish to cause you stress. I've created the Requests for comment/Wuhwuzdat anyway, and hope that it doesn't turn into a battle. Thanks for the attempts you've already made on behalf of the new user. --RexxS (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand. What do you think of the way I "participated"? Would you be willing to do that? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks - most apprectiated. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI - Both you and "things" seem to be managinging well. As I don't have anything to add (without repeating myself), I'm withdrawing and "purging" my watchlist.
 * Nice to have "met" you and interacted with you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all the best. DuncanHill (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"Arbsock"
Just a 'fyi' really. The 'sock' which MZMcBride is referring to is, which is a secondary account of an Arbitrator to revert BLP vandalism. It hasn't got many edits - check the contribs. There's nothing malicious going on with it.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was just working that out. Why would an Arbitrator need another account to revert vandalism? DuncanHill (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Presumably to keep the watchlist confined to the articles in question. The real question is: why has the account not been connected with its owner? –xenotalk 20:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Watchlist seperation would be an acceptable reason for having a vandal-reversion-only account. I agree that not linking to the master account is strange.DuncanHill (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't don't know that answer. My only thought would be that they didn't want Greg Kohs to know it was them reverting - If an arb had been doing the reverting then he would have known he was suspected of socking further. Especially so, given he had an admin account under his wing at the time - it was probably for the best that Greg didn't know the arbitrators were looking out for him.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I am sure the Arb in question will soon declare their ownership of the account. DuncanHill (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose they'll have to now. I personally think it's a legitimate reason, but I'm sure others (and perhaps rightly) will have a differing opinion.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The cat is out of the bag now, I don't see a legitimate reason for the connection not to be made at this time. –xenotalk 20:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Given my past history of objecting to socking, I must concur that the arb who owns the account should disclose the connection.  MBisanz  talk 20:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Greenscreen gadget?
I've never heard of that complaint before. Could you please reply on my page about what it is, and how it's making my bold text, black-colored name appear invisible? -(Arcayne)  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  13:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Cows
I took this here if you want to contribute, otherwise this will go on all night... Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * yep, I saw and have commented there. DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Its the Cows
Could you tell me what it is that I have edited to displease you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The cows want their milk back (talk • contribs) 19:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dunc, I can assure you I included edit summaries on most of my Edits, especially more recent edits. Also, is there something wrong with changing UK to England? When talking about something Scottish, you would almost always says Scottish, never British. Why can't the same be said about England? The cows want their milk back (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Monastic houses
There is a List of monastic houses in Cornwall which I have tried and failed to edit as the table is set up in a complex way. ==Bodmin== The Roman Catholic Abbey of St Mary and St Petroc, formerly belonging to the Canons Regular of the Lateran was built in 1965 next to the already existing seminary. --Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding this went wrong in some way.

--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Another problem there is that the grammar of the introduction is slightly wrong but that paragraph does not appear when I try to edit it. I have also been unable to solve the problem of refs 36 & 37 on the Mining in Devon and Cornwall page. If you can help I would be grateful.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * rowspan=2|Abbey of St Mary and St Petroc, Bodmin
 * rowspan=2|
 * rowspan=2| Canons Regular of the Lateran
 * rowspan=2|
 * rowspan=2|
 * Hello, Thank you for trying on these problems. Tables like that make it more difficult for many users to keep them up-to-date. Perhaps copying the text for the source article into MS Word would make a word search possible on the refname. Thank you.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sorting out that one: I'll try again about the problem table.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I hardly ever edit simple tables and that one seems to be part of a set dependent on a higher level article with some automatic copying of data between them. I'm glad it got fixed a few hours ago. Someday I hope to look at it again: I only found out it was there a few days ago even though it overlaps with the section in Christianity in Cornwall. Best wishes.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Scouts d'Andorra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting/Archive_2009#Scout_Association_of_the_People.27s_Republic_of_China --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Cornwall
Hi Duncan. Thanks for your note. I have replied on my Talk page. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)