User talk:DuncanHill
 | My editing is likely to be severely limited for the foreseeable future for financial reasons. I may be unable to reply to messages in a timely manner, and I may also find it hard to access my email regularly. DuncanHill (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
If you decide that you wish to withdraw a comment you have made here, I would prefer that you strike it (with an appropriate comment) instead of blanking it. This is to make it easier to follow conversations, and to maintain the integrity of the record. Thank you. Caveat Should I receive information by private means I shall consider that the sender has waived any claim of copyright or privacy on their part of the message and has obtained such permission on the part of any third parties whose post(s) form part of the message. By communicating with me outside of Wikipedia spaces you are giving me permission to disseminate the content of any message in the manner of my choosing, and you hold yourself liable for any violation of law, Wikipedia policies, service providers Terms of Service, and other consequence of my making public of such information. You may request privacy, and I may honour such a request, but I am not bound by it. DuncanHill (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
1 (Jul 07)
2 (Oct 07) |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
UK Coal Reserves
Hi there, could you let me know if you've decided not to correct the UK Coal Reserves/Coal Gasification entry on the United Kingdom - Economy section, please (in case you've forgotten, this relates to the Wiki science question pages of 6th September). Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh god - my apologies, that had completely slipped my mind! DuncanHill (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's no problem. Are you sure that still want to do it. I'd be happy to have a stab at it myself. But I confess, it's not something I have much of a grasp of. It just looked intuitively wrong. Daicaregos (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mind if you do it - after all it was your hunch that led to finding the information. DuncanHill (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'll give you a shout when the edit's done, if you wouldn't mind checking it? Give me a day or so. Should be a laugh, if nothing else. :) Daicaregos (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- OK, sounds good. DuncanHill (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'll give you a shout when the edit's done, if you wouldn't mind checking it? Give me a day or so. Should be a laugh, if nothing else. :) Daicaregos (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mind if you do it - after all it was your hunch that led to finding the information. DuncanHill (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's no problem. Are you sure that still want to do it. I'd be happy to have a stab at it myself. But I confess, it's not something I have much of a grasp of. It just looked intuitively wrong. Daicaregos (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi DuncanHill, I've added the coal reserves/UGC information to the United Kingdom, Economy section. Would you mind having a look please. Let me know if it's ok. Please feel free to amend any errors as you think fit. Many thanks, :) Daicaregos (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Mate, please don't forget this time too. Daicaregos (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- It looks good to me, clearly written and referenced. Sorry again for forgetting - and thank you for raising such an interesting question in the first place. DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that DuncanHill. At least I can blame someone else, now, when they ridicule me for having the scientific understanding of Prince Charles. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- It looks good to me, clearly written and referenced. Sorry again for forgetting - and thank you for raising such an interesting question in the first place. DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Administrative conduct
Be sure to not exacerbate wiki's noted negatives by making redress even more odious, as you have in regard the abuses of "Realist2". The "handling" of matters like this in such an unacceptable way is a disservice. These kinds of things lead me to put in my students' syllabi that I'll not accept anything from wiki, and actively detract from it in lecture.
--Dr. America (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- You damaged a page, for which I warned you. I have no idea what else your problem is. DuncanHill (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Also, why head this section "administrative conduct"? Neither Realist2 nor myself are admins. DuncanHill (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- We've never claimed to be admins either lol. Odd. — Realist2 16:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Also, why head this section "administrative conduct"? Neither Realist2 nor myself are admins. DuncanHill (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Plural s
Whoops. Thanks for the heads up.--Tznkai (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Courtenay of Tremere
I disagree on the content of the article Courtenay of Tremere and believe that the average reader (me included) would be left guessing as to what the following content means. It also does not follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style guidelines. For example:
i) William Courtenay b. 1509 = Elizabeth Bowerman
ii) Dorothy Courtenay b 1515 = John Ley
iii) John Courtenay Of Tremere = Elizabeth Trengrove (b. 1520/1521 - d. 1560)
iv) Alice Courtenay b. 1525 = William Paynter
The editing and trimming of the article I did was done to help the reader better understand the subject since it is currently underwhelmingly incomplete and would give readers a false sense of what the Courtenay family of Tremere was. The main purpose of my edits were to eliminate one of the oldest articles marked for cleanup. Since you disagree with them do you have any suggestions, or would you be willing to cleanup the article instead? Barkeep Chat | $ 20:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- "John Courtenay Of Tremere = Elizabeth Trengrove (b. 1520/1521 - d. 1560), Lanivet, near Bodmin in Cornwall.[3] In his youth he appears to have been attached to Cromwell’s household. In the autumn of 1553 Courtenay used his family's connexion with the Lostwithiel constituency to have himself elected the town's junior Member in Mary's first Parliament. In the autumn of 1555, he was elected as a Member for Penryn. He died on 1 Mar 1560, being buried at Lanivet, where a monument was erected to his memory. He left life interest in the Tremere property to his widow, who later married Thomas Arundell." certainly needs to stay in the article - this MP is the subject of a redirect to the page. DuncanHill (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine, that can be left in there. Would you be OK with my version of the article was restored as long as that it included the above text? If so, can I assume that "John Courtenay Of Tremere = Elizabeth Trengrove" means that they are married? Barkeep Chat | $ 20:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- It does, it is a standard genealogical notation. It may be worth looking at previous versions of the page to see if anything of value has been lost along the way. I think Talskiddy has been the main contributor to the page. DuncanHill (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine, that can be left in there. Would you be OK with my version of the article was restored as long as that it included the above text? If so, can I assume that "John Courtenay Of Tremere = Elizabeth Trengrove" means that they are married? Barkeep Chat | $ 20:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- That looks better, thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Cream Tea Picture
Hiya, I'm intrigued by your message. Do you hold the view that cream on first is a Devon cream tea? :) Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
'Don't think I've ever had them with butter on :) Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the contribution to the draft article. I have been wondering if, when I judge it ready for main space, I should just do a move as opposed to a cut and paste? I want to nail down notability with several independent refs with substantial coverage, but the total sales of his numerous books might satisfy some criterion, if they could be documented. Do you see the lack of a death date as a barrier to notability, for someone who lived from 1869 to circa 1951 or 1955? Edison (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I usually cut and paste, but I don't think it makes that much difference really. The lack of a death date should not be a problem in terms of notability - I think the Who Was Who reference argues to notability. Of course, a death date would be good, and I strongly suspect that he would have been obituarized somewhere. A reference for sales of his books would also be helpful, but personally I don't think it would be essential before a move to mainspace. Apart from that - thanks for writing an article about such an interesting person! DuncanHill (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your improvement to this article. I would appreciate your input as to what the article should be called. On his books, Collins listed his name as "A. Frederick Collins." This is also what he was called in i various American newspapers during the stock promotion campaign which got him into trouble in 1911. Who's Who listed him as "A(RCHIE) FREDERICK COLLINS. So should the main article be moved to "A. Frederick Collins" and "Archie Frederick Collins be a redirect, or would you leave it as is? I note the articles W. Somerset Maugham , A. A. Milne, C. S. Lewis and H. G. Wells where the title is the most commonly used version of the name. Thanks again. Edison (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
YOU ROCK YOU ROCK, NEED ANY HELP HIT ME UP Jamez21 (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)