User talk:DuncanHill/Archives/2011/June

Merge discussion for Civil Parish of Winterbourne
An article that you have been involved in editing, Civil Parish of Winterbourne, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

England, United Kingdom
Hi, re - assuming that you mean WikiProject Cornwall/Guideline - where in there does it actually specify that "Cornwall, England in the United Kingdom" is preferable to "Cornwall, England"? -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In the bit where you follow the link to the previous discussion. .DuncanHill (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but all I see there is a somewhat inconclusive discussion with a 2:2 !vote. It would help if an actual guideline or policy document - in Wikipedia: space, not on a talk page - stated clearly what the preferred form is.
 * A similar matter has recently come up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The wording has been stable for a considerable time. Before it was adopted there were regular edit wars between both Cornish nationalists and English nationalists, the first excising reference to England, the latter removing mentions of the United Kingdom and insisting on mentioning England after just about any mention of Cornwall. I'm pretty certain, given your previous edits in the area that you were already well aware of the wording and the reasons for its adoption. DuncanHill (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

ham
The hectoring was on the part part of several editors who (1) refactored my comment (2) began a discussion about me as a person on the ref desk page, rather than taking it to my talk page if they had a concern with my behavior. Under such circumstances I hardly care to examine the appropriateness of my original comment.μηδείς (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

CNLA
A number of comments regarding the CNLA article have been made on its talk page Govynn (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand you. I understand the community reaction, but I'm not following your point
Rather than carry on a conversation on someone else's talk page, I'll post directly to yours.

You stated that I "don't understand the community reaction to Nabla's behaviour". How do you know? I think I do. You also said "I don't understand how anyone can set themselves up as in some way more trustworthy than the rest of us and yet not understand the reaction to events like this." To what or whom is this addressed? It clearly isn't addressed to me, so I'm not sure why you added it.

In an attempt to be clear, I do not support what Nabla did, but I thought I made this clear, so I'm puzzled by your reaction. While I think what Nabla did was wrong, I think the community has over-reacted (which is not the same as saying I don't understand the reaction. One can understand something, even if it is wrong.-- SPhilbrick  T  22:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would help if you explained just what it is you see as an over-reaction? Me drawing admins' attention to his behaviour? (Others have objected to that). Calls for him to lose admin rights? Calls for blocking? DuncanHill (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. I think that, in light of the fact that the actions taken didn't even involve admin tools, the rush to start an emergency desysop was way over the top. The facts aren't all in, but based upon what I've seen, I would support a temporary, perhaps even a permanent removal of tools, but I think there's no need to rush, and I thought the request by 28bytes was roughly right.-- SPhilbrick  T  00:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've seen editors blocked for less - but of course they weren't admins. I've been threatened with a block for making good edits while logged out (and having declared my account before anyone even asked). Are admins really unblockable so long as they don't actually abuse their tools? Being an admin shouldn't give anyone a free pass to engage in the behaviours admins don't allow in others. Unfortunately, few admins share that opinion. Time and again we see unacceptable behaviour from admins being defended by their fellows, just because of the sense of entitlement and special status that being an admin brings. Nobody believes that adminship is "no big deal" - least of all admins themselves. You (the class) fight tooth and nail to hang on to your privileges, and attack the community when it says "Hold - enough". It's a long-term pattern of behaviour, of which Nabla and his defenders are just the latest example. I gave up commenting at RfA when I saw admins attack a candidate for his stated wish to help improve the editing environment. Should have realised then that as a class you cannot be trusted and are out for your own ends, not the good of the encyclopædia. I don't particularly trust any of you - cetainly, I'd tend to trust a random admin rather less than I would a random non-admin. Unlike Nabla I don't take out my frustration by blanking templates. DuncanHill (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not communicating, so I'll stop trying. I find this: "Should have realized then that as a class you cannot be trusted and are out for your own ends, not the good of the encyclopædia." exceedingly distasteful. I am not a class, and do not appreciate being lumped into one. I don't believe you know much of anything about me—you've made several statements about me that have all proven to be wrong. Please think about what that might mean. I understand, more than you might realize, why you would be quite emotional about this incident. However, you haven't yet said a single accurate word about me, instead you are ranting about some mythical people I don't even know, so I'll disengage.-- SPhilbrick  T  00:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, you've not said anything constructive so far. DuncanHill (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Careful Please
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Cornwall. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.I just blocked another user for edit warring on that same page. I would hate to have to block you too. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 20:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Sure, next time someone ignores all the discussions already on the talk page and refuses, despite repeated invitations, to participate I'll just let them carry on with their POV crap. DuncanHill (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Geology of Cornwall
Hello again, This may not be a good time to consult you given some of the doings in WP Cornwall recently. However since this problem concerns both Cornwall and Geology here it is. A structural geologist User:Mikenorton has been working away for a while on high quality articles in that field. One of these is Cornubian batholith which until I saw the article I would not have been aware of as a label for the granite of Devon and Cornwall. Perhaps you could look at a sample of what he is doing and see what you think. Best wishes.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The article's been on my watchlist for a while - not just for the obvious connexion but also Martin Bott, who did some pioneering work on it was professor at Durham when I was there. It's looking good to me. DuncanHill (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you ...
for your considered and intelligent reply to my post at the AC/N talk page. It gave me reason to sit and think about what you said. I won't go so far as to convert my immediate thoughts on the matter, but I really appreciated what you had to say. Well done. — Ched : ?  10:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, it is appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)