User talk:DuncanHill/Archives/2010/October

Robert, 1st Earl of Gloucester
Please quote exactly the exact words used by your source. We have no primary source whatsoever which claims to quote Robert on anything, let alone what he thought of his own title.Wjhonson (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We use secondary sources for references on Wikipedia. The ODNB says "He himself avoided the style comes and embraced that of consul, which seems to have suited better a mind oriented to the classical world and self-importance." DuncanHill (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We do not use secondary sources for references. We use a combination of primary and secondary sources.  You should reread the policy pages on this, which I helped write.  Your source is wrong in that CP states that all or most Earls of this period are described with the same style.  It was not a personal choice of his, but rather of the clerks who wrote at this period.Wjhonson (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed pretty much all unreferenced material from the article. As you so strenuously object to editors adding references after you have requested them I shall refrain from providing any more references to it, even though I could easily do so. I see no point in further communication between us, and am removing the page from my watchlist. DuncanHill (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. Now I can rewrite the page using actual references.  By the way "after the White Ship" is monumentally rejected by the fact that the marriage occurred in the previous year as stated by every chronicler who cites it at all.  Have a good day.Wjhonson (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "In the aftermath of the White Ship disaster of 1120, when his younger and legitimate half-brother, William, died, Robert shared in the largess that the king distributed to reassert his political position. Robert was given the marriage of Mabel, the heir of Robert fitz Haimon, whose lands in the west country and Glamorgan had been in royal wardship since 1107. The marriage also brought Robert the Norman honours of Evrecy and St Scholasse-sur-Sarthe. Robert was raised to the rank of earl of Gloucester soon after, probably by the end of 1121." David Crouch, ‘Robert, first earl of Gloucester (b. before 1100, d. 1147)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2006 accessed 1 Oct 2010
 * Please don't reply here. DuncanHill (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * But if you're still watching, David Crouch is this fellow, not the dead Tory MP you linked to in the article. DuncanHill (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Gogmagog (folklore)
New page Gogmagog (folklore) created and Gogmagog (band) amended. Many thanks - I was tempted to try to seperate them out but wasn't sure of the best way to do it. Problem solved. Alansplodge (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
You were kind to help me with my technical difficulties with Periodic Graph, and I notice that you did a little clean-up as well. I did not see anything in Wikipedia's help page about sending in thank you notes (something Wikipedia might think about), so I'm posting this here. Thank you. Glmccolm (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Saintly order
Hi Duncan. Sorry about that. I was that tied up with problems with the Geograph2Commons tool, which appears to be having serious problems with the new look Wikimedia Commons page, that I hadn't noticed your plea for me to stop adding parishes while you sorted it! Do we have consensus for this format of ordering across the United Kingdom, or just in Cornwall (mind you, not many places are as saintly as Cornwall in their naming policies!)? I note that Category:Districts of England and Category:Metropolitan boroughs use the alternative alphabetical order where St comes between Splott and Stalybridge, rather than between Saffron Walden and Sale. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we need consensus to use correct alphabetical order? If those categories are incorrectly sorted, it's because no-one has bothered to add defaultsorts to the articles correctly. DuncanHill (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Manual of Style makes it clear that both formats are acceptable (as is a format that groups Saint, San, Santo Sankt and whatever together), and that there isn't a correct or incorrect alphabetical order. Similarly with McMacs.  Skinsmoke (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if both are acceptable then let's go with what is already established for Cornwall. For place names in Britain we're unlikely to find many in Santo or Sankt. I would note that both the Ordnance Survey and the Reader's Digest sort St at Saint in their atlases, as does the Times Atlas of the World, the Oxford Dictionary of the World, and A. D. Mills' Popular Dictionary of English Place-Names. DuncanHill (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think something with fairly wide reaching consequences like this should be decided by just two editors. I would suggest we ask for opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography.  Skinsmoke (talk) 07:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: Should alphabetical order mean alphabetical order, as used in reputable reference works, or should it mean not-in-alphabetical-order, because this is Wikipedia and we don't like do do things properly? Sorry, but I don't see what the problem is. If you're going to have a table that sorts by alphabetical order, then do so. Otherwise, don't bother. I do not see the point of making a table sort in an order that bears no relation to reality. DuncanHill (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've copied this thread to User talk:Skinsmoke/Sandbox/Civil parishes/Kernow, which is where it belongs. Can we try to keep discussion there please? DuncanHill (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

WT:BISE
Your general point about notifying article talkpages is well made, and editors at WT:BISE are very bad at doing so and frequently need reminded. However, in this case notification was. TFOWR 13:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hidden in an external link that people need to click in order to see. If editors aren't seeing that as notification when they are specifically looking for notification, god help anyone who wasn't specifically looking for it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Point taken, and I've added a more visual link now. This particular discussion is somewhat old, and pre-dates many improvements that I've tried to introduce (with varying degrees of success...) There are almost certainly other old, unresolved discussions in a similar position - I'll check now. TFOWR 13:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I only checked a couple of the discussions, having looked at two and not seen any notification, and already knowing of another where notification was late (in which early notification could have resolved the problem quickly and simply) I would have got too angry if I checked more and found the same problem. Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Church Rates (England)
Thanks for your help, Duncan. I have edited the text. This should take care of the "hidden" category of "Needs updating." I don't understand the objections to the use of Britannica. I accidentally got the "Submit" link into the article and took it out without comment (should have been a minor edit?) Still have to add a Wikipedia link to Jack Russell and a link to a book by Ellens. Reference to the Times should be in italics; I will do that at the same time. Paragraphs in my text were removed. What is the policy there?

Douglaid (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sock it to'em
Howdy DH. My guess is, that wasn't MidnightBlueMan, but rather that Maiden City bloke impersonating MBM. Wowsers, MBM isn't that foolish enough, to declare his own sock. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't have a clue who it was. Just obvious that they were up to no good. DuncanHill (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's for sure. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello?
Um, this edit summary makes it look as though you're calling me a twat. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do apologise - 'twas directed at another! Did you know that Browning thought a twat was part of a nun's habit? DuncanHill (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Quote
Hi Duncan, noticed your quote of the decade - pretty good. Thought I would share this one with you: couple of days ago I was accused of hiding behind a rational argument! Really made me really chuckle. Still does, in fact. Have you ever hidden behind a rational argument Duncan? Daicaregos (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Hey! Thanks for the message. I've replied on my talk page PanydThe muffin is not subtle 01:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Verdigris
You responded that the coating on the penny was a layer of verdigris. This is mostly copper(II) acetate. Now I don't think they carried those pennies in vinegar... And if they did, the verdigris would wash off quickly or be ruined. I think that it is a patina. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, from our article patina - "The green patina that forms naturally on copper and bronze, sometimes called verdigris, usually consists of a mixture of chlorides, sulphides and carbonates (copper carbonate, copper chloride or copper sulphide)". DuncanHill (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ok Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Caveat
Hi, I noticed this part of your Caveat at the top of this page: "By communicating with me outside of Wikipedia spaces...you hold yourself liable for any violation of...Wikipedia policies". That is interesting because I recently reassured an e-post correspondent that Wikipedia policy did not restrict this way of communicating. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved from userpage
(by LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC))

Possible overlinking
Hi. In this edit, you changed Cornwall, United Kingdom into Cornwall, England, United Kingdom.

Given that there is only one Cornwall in the United Kingdom, one of the links seems redundant. Could this be a case of overlinking? Please reply here, if you would - thanks. Trafford09 (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned in the edit summary, the change was to reflect the established usage and guideline from the relevant Wikiproject. It was also restoring the wording that had just been changed by an IP. There have been numerous edit-wars about the wording used for places in Cornwall, and the "Cornwall, England, United Kingdom" formula was adopted as a compromise to reduce the likelihood of these recurring. DuncanHill (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. OK - if that's the compromise consensus, so be it. Btw, if you're partly responsible for all the Cornwall-related (shown here) articles being Assessed, then well done. Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you - but I'm sure others have done far more than me to assess articles, I can claim no special credit there! DuncanHill (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You're modest - I wish I could claim most Go-related articles were assessed. It's as well there's wp:No deadline. :) Trafford09 (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alas I know next to nothing about Go, so wouldn't be able to give you much help there. DuncanHill (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

BISE
Re: your comment at Talk:Melniboné, when you say "the taskforce", the taskforce is different people Duncan, so I'm a bit uncertain what you were getting at exactly, but the current position is it gets discussed a little first to see if it needs templating - if you're advocating that it should be auto-templated as soon as raised, could you raise that at the BISE page as a policy point? I would be inclined to support that myself. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall suggesting something like that more than once before. But apparently my comments are not welcome. The taskforce's discussions are so fragmented across several project pages and project talk pages that it is hard for outsiders to have a clue where to suggest anything. You know, I actually regret bothering to try to help in the first place. The taskforce as a whole does not want or welcome non-members to its discussions. It certainly does little to invite them. DuncanHill (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which both myself and TFOWR have been seeking to change with the templates, formatted discussions, etc. I agree with you in a way, as clearly some of this has always been around trying to "sneak" changes, but openness will only emerge from willing participation. I'm not quite clear why you find it so annoying (if you do) - does it go wider than the issue for you and you see it as non-policy from a wikiwide point of view? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like a closed shop of editors trying to exercise ownership of an issue. It looks like an attempt to exclude article editors from discussions about the articles they have edited. It looks like an attempt to undermine existing agreed usage where it exists. Frankly, I generally don't give a damn about the whole "British Isles" issue (both sides seem equally idiotic on the whole), but I do care about the non-collegial way in which the taskforce works. There is a wealth of knowledge and experience available through the article talk pages and the local Wikiprojects - but the taskforce seems to have no wish to draw upon that. You want participants? Go out and ask for them, and then make them welcome when they turn up. DuncanHill (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We seem to be in agreement on the principle - my query is why you think it's a closed shop on the issue when at least 3 very close-up participants (myself, TFOWR and Snowded) are very much in favour of making it open and locally announced? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, HighKing, having previously promised this has clearly gone back on his word, and I'm the only person to have noticed. I think it's a closed shop becasue of how it operates - haveing three members who want an open shop doesn't stop it being in practice a closed shop. DuncanHill (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I get your drift now - a specific on this should probably be added to the sanctions rulebook once agreed. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which will be where? The taskforce's "guidelines" are scattered about all over the place and jumbled up with proposals, discussions, polls, and god knows what. I have sincerely tried to find my way around its pages to understand how it is meant to work and I can't. DuncanHill (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wowsers DH, I want as many outsiders to become insiders as possible. That includes you, MickMacNee & Scolaire (for starters). GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no can do, the taskforce is off my watchlist now. DuncanHill (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember Churchill's words: "It's better to be on the inside p-ssing out, then on the outside p-ssing in". GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear that some of your members like pissing on outsiders. DuncanHill (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope I'm not one of them. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not, and neither is James. Anyway, as I said it's off my watchlist now, and I'll do my best to ignore it unless it crops up on pages it shouldn't again. DuncanHill (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)