User talk:DuncanHill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

PLEASE USE EDIT SUMMARIES - IF YOU DON'T THEN I SHALL ASSUME THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS CRAP

Cornwall/England/UK[edit]

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)

Ref Desk Follies of 2014[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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

Edits like this[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Thanks[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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)