User talk:DuncanHill/Archives/2010/March

Mining in Cornwall and Devon

Hello again, I have just come across the proposal to divide this article into two which I did not see before as I do not have any watched articles (if ones that interest me get changed significantly I will probably notice at a later time). The objection about having two counties linked in one article is a rule I have not been aware of before; anyway I have done two articles where Devon and Cornwall are treated together but the mining one is more problematic because Dartmoor tin has a separate article (how much mining there is in Devon outside Dartmoor I am not sure about; also debatable is the inclusion of quarrying which only has sketchy coverage at present). I wonder what your view would be (it seems to have lasted three months without comment).--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about...

From 1542 to 1707 Wales did not exist. It was part of England. The sentence had made it seem as if the two were separate at the time, when it clearly states it happened after 1542. Deal with the facts, it was not an unhelpful edit. 82.1.157.16 (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In a political sense, it did not. If anyone here is being disruptive, it is you for changing it back. 82.1.157.16 (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You accuse me of Vandalism, yet you still don't cease to revert my edits? Isn't that a bit hypocritical? You are pushing you point of view in that article, so you are as much a vandal as you think me to be 82.1.157.16 (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:75.68.82.23

The IP editor you noted on AN/I who is fixated on causes of death and non-standard infbox information came off a block yesterday and began doing exactly the same kinds of edits. I've looked and everything's reverted at this moment, but you might want to keep an eye out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Cornwall deletions

Hi Duncan, I noticed you dropped a note on Simple Bob's talk page about deletions. If you copy that to me I could have a look too if you think it would be useful. Best wishes Andy F (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Kampfgeschwader 6

You have, rather tetchily, dabbed 'Falmouth to Falmouth, Cornwall again' (my italics) in the 'Kampfgescwader 6 article'. The reason I also did not add counties to Canterbury, Norwich, Exeter and Chelmsford was consistency.There were simply too many places. If I had done so to all the other towns and cites in the article, you would still be reading it ! Or was it that the likes of Weymouth Bay, Cardiff and Newcastle are not in Cornwall? Incidentally, I did shorten "Portsmouth, England" to just "Portsmouth"
Regards
RASAM (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at the page reached by Falmouth? Or do you actually want to include incorrect links in articles you have clearly put a lot of time and effort into? DuncanHill (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, but I would ask does that mean you will be giving the other towns and cities in the article the same treatment even though they are not in Cornwall ? RASAM (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I keep an eye on incoming links to a few dab pages, Falmouth among them. Why are you so upset that I corrected a bad link in your article? If you like, I could go back and insert a lot of incorrect links to places all over the world for you. Would that make you happy? DuncanHill (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Dixon

Hi mate,

Thanks for the note. The NSW river runs right through the area on the NSW south coast / southern highlands where Dixon settled and is almost certainly the river in question. There is no evidence Dixon ever traveled to Tasmania, irrespective of what it was then called.

The confusion is that for a while there, the term Van Diemen's Land was used to describe the whole of Australia, though not officially (but obviously enough to make it into Dixon's biography).

Confusingly there is a Clyde River in Tassie (which was officially referred to as Van Diemen's Land) which is the river you highlighted. The Dixon article should probably be amended to remove the colloquial reference. Nice pick-up on the original incorrect link... and all the other incorrect links :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stalwart111 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more! Stalwart111 (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well deserved! Stalwart111 (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Reason for edit

Cornwall doesn't have an international team. They have a county FA representative team who once played Trinidad and Tobago. This was while T&T were on a tour where they also played several other county FAs and some club sides[1]. They have also played Jersey and Guernsey but they are also affiliated with the FA and considered county FAs of England. It is debatable whether Jersey or Guernsey should be included in the list either. Eckerslike (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The list is specifically for non-national teams. I shall revert your edit if you can't come up with a more convincing explanation. DuncanHill (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The list is for non-national teams that compete at the international level and have aspirations to join FIFA as made clear in the intro. Cornwall are a county team that is affiliated with the FA. If you include Cornwall then you have to include the 40+ county teams that compete in England. Eckerslike (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The introduction makes no mention whatsoever of aspirations to join FIFA. DuncanHill (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It mentions FIFA in the first sentence. That wouldn't be done if it didn't have some relevance to the article. For example, County Football Association makes no reference to FIFA. Eckerslike (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It mentions FIFA only to make clear that the teams are not affiliated with it in any way. DuncanHill (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That wouldn't be mentioned if affiliation isn't possible, as is the case with county FAs. You still haven't addressed the issue that Cornwall hasn't played an international match. Eckerslike (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed every issue you have raised, including your misrepresentation of what the introduction actually says. Now I don't pretend to be an expert on football, but I'm sure that "moving the goalposts", as you seem to be doing with every comment, isn't helpful. DuncanHill (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

excessive referencing

One is enough - why not just choose the one you think is best. The web sites other than the BBC are dubious anyway --Snowded ^TALK 21:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is not a BBC reference in the group you are seeking to trim. I have already started a thread on the article talk page about your removal of references for something which you had been demanding references for. DuncanHill (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. You need to cool down a bit you know --Snowded ^TALK 22:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou...

...for sweet words of reassurance. I'm now experiencing the wikequivalent of did-I-lock-the-door? neurosis. Did I type my address correctly on the form? Sigh. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem - and I know what you mean about typing correctly and worrying! It'll be a wonderful resource. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Cornwall assessments

The bot no longer updates the lists such as Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Cornwall-related articles by quality on the wiki. The list is still available, via the web tool at http://toolserver.org/~enwp10 . Just use 'Cornwall-related' as the project name. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Agroeurasia

You don't create a page with a four-month old cleanup tag. This came from somewhere. HalfShadow 16:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen that happen before - new editor copies formatting from another article they've seen, I searched Wikipedia for the title word, and got no results, so does not look like a duplication of any other article. DuncanHill (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I had to tag it with something though; that was too weird to ignore. HalfShadow 16:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why a speedy tag was needed - credible claim of notability, no BLP concerns, would only really leave copyvio as grounds for speedy, but no evidence so far of copyvio. DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Kampfgeschwader 6, part II

As already stated above, I have not put counties after every town and city in the article because a) there would be far too many; and b) it would distort the article to an unacceptable degree. I appreciate you not wanting a load of broken links there, but it does seem a bit strange to me that you want 'Cornwall' ones. Are you a native of that county, by any chance? Anyway, thanks for fixing the link
Regards RASAM (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to put counties after every town or city, only for those which need disambiguation - Falmouth is one of several disambiguation pages I regularly check incoming links for. I'd have corrected the link whichever of the many Falmouths around the world had been intended. I'm not a native of Cornwall, but did grow up there. DuncanHill (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)