User talk:DuncanHill/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archived 04th December 2007

Contents

[edit]  :-(

Sad to see you leave, especially if it's bollocks that drove you away. I hope pleasant memories of volunteering at the desks haunt you until you find yourself back here, answering weird and whacky questions. Meanwhile, take care, Duncan, and best of all wishes wherever you go. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Be well. Come back soon. I'd recommend a walk on the beach, but it's all rocks, isn't it? It's sad to see a dedicated editor go. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's wrong?

What's going on, Duncan? Clio the Muse (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Straw

See this diff [1] and associated threads. DuncanHill (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Guy appears not to have a clue what he is talking about, not one article created by me has been deleted, yet apparently there's something wrong with my editing because a few of the articles I have dabbed, or proposed for deletion, or moved, have subsequently been deleted. I can't put up with hte lies and arrogance of certain people anymore. DuncanHill (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Duncan: I still can't work it out. There is obviously a story here that would require some deeper penetration. Look, you are obviously angry. Might I suggest that you think about it a few days before making a final decision? I hope you don't mind the sisterly advice. I was almost driven off at one point too, but I am bloody-minded and got greater satisfaction out of remaining, thankfully driving one persecutor quite mad in the process! (Well, madder than he already is!). However, if your mind is made up there is little more that I can say, other than I will miss you. All the best from Anastasia Clio the Muse (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Duncan, I hope you don't take one administrator's completely off-topic comment as a reflected review of your editing here. It was completely uncalled for, and only a few respondents addressed your legitimate question properly, while some of your follow-ups went unanswered. I hate to say this, but WP:AN and WP:ANI are mainly useful for clear cut cases, and, I hate to say this as well, but non-administrators aren't always taken seriously there, or so it appears to me anyway. I suggest you take it up with one or two administrators you know and trust. There are several reliable ones at the reference desks, as I'm sure you know. In any case, don't let the noticeboard prose get to you. That grinding machine is not what Wikipedia is about. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


Reply to Clio after edit conflict - The story is - I think that speedy deletions are sometimes misused, but as only admins can actually see what has been speedied, it is impossible to properly challenge them. I raised this on the admin noticeboard after an admin deleted an article about a George Cross recipient AFTER I had removed the speedy tag (clearly she knows nothing about gallantry). Guy (not the deleting admin) then accused me of having a lot of deleted contributions, and said this showed a problem with my editing. In fact, not one article created by me has ever been deleted. He came up with alist on his talk page, which was mainly articles that I had dabbed wikilinks in but which had subsequently been deleted (that is, I had not contributed any content to them, simply tried to ensure they functioned correctly in terms of linking to other articles). Others on the list include articles I had proposed for deletion, and articles I had moved because they were mis-named (he is counting the old, wrongly named articles against me as deletions!). He clearly hasn't got a clue how to read the information he was looking at. He says I am hostile - well, I AM hostile to unfounded attacks on my editing record. I spend a lot of time working on wikipedia, in repairing links through dabbing, or trying to help out at the refdesks, or giving out welcome boxes to new users (and do you EVER see admins welcoming new users?), reverting and reporting vandalism, stub-sorting and cat-sorting, and even writing a few little articles or trying to add references to others. I'd even just started building a little resource-centre for my colleagues at the Cornwall WikiProject. I now have no confidence in the ability of the admin system (a system of collective irresponsibility, it appears to me), to deal with serious problems, so I think it best to withdraw my labour. Perhaps I should say I am on "Wiki-strike" rather than a "Wiki-break"! I might come back, I might not, I really don't know. DuncanHill (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

After a closer perusal of Guy's list, I see that there are articles on it which HAVE NOT been deleted in any way shape or form! Clio - maybe you could explain to him why "check your facts" is a good thing! DuncanHill (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
To help me improve my edits(!) I have copied the list so generously created by Guy to my userpage here - My Deleted Contributions. DuncanHill (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think I understand; I certainly sympathise witth your feelings, your obvious sense of frustration. But there are some good admins that I know of. If you like I could ask one to have a look into the matter on your behalf. But perhaps you are best to stand back, for a little while anyway.
"A good sword and a trusty hand,
A merry heart and true;
King James' men shall understand
What Cornish lads can do!
And have they fixed the where and when,
And shall Trelawny die?
Here's twenty thousand Cornishmen
Shall know the reason why!" Clio the Muse (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Whilst emotionally appealing, a good sword might be a very bad idea while I'm in this mood! DuncanHill (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Come back soon

Hello again, I am sorry that you feel the need to go on a wikibreak. You could pop over to milhist's hotline page if you felt like it. You will be interested to know that the admin who sparked this all off has received several comments on her talkpage regarding some of her recent actions. She was wrong to delete that article and she could have handled it slightly better after it. I am sorry that your interactions with admins on the mess that is ANI and AN have led you to lose faith in admins as a whole. Some are not that bad. If you need any help, just ask. Though I am busy with all the VC recipients at the mo ;) Woodym555 (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen her talk page (it's still on my watchlist, for the time being) and unfortunately it just tends to confirm my opinion. A comment like "if you weren't an admin I'd give you a warning template, not this gentle reminder" (or words to that effect) does not suggest that admins are capable of policing each other. Admins are just ordinary editors? Not so long as they apply lower standards to each other than they do to ordinary editors. Woody, you are a decent guy, thanks for your help. DuncanHill (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
My offer of help is always there.
n.b. You may be interested to know that one of the George Cross recipients that Nick has created is now on the Main page in the DYK section. Arthur Frederick Crane Nicholls. Kindof shows the disparity really doesn't it? Oh well. We soldier on...!! Regards Woodym555 (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes I saw - I'm very pleased for Nick. DuncanHill (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My thanks

Thanks to you all for your kind words and your concern - I do appreciate it very much indeed. DuncanHill (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time to end the strike

I don't know you. I've never edited (to my knowledge) any page that you've edited. We seem to live in different hemispheres. I did see your recent exchange regarding unjustified accusations, a problem I too have faced. You have been making far too many productive edits to allow an incident like this to push you away from Wikipedia. The best way to deal with this nonsense is to put your nose to the keyboard and keep on doing exactly what you were doing before: building a quality encyclopedia. There are far too many self-appointed arbiters who have anointed themselves as judge, jury and executioner to decide what belongs in "their" encyclopedia and who is entitled to edit it. Your strike won't stop this behavior, it will only encourage further such abuse allowing the perpetrators to move on and focus their bullying on their next victim. It's high time that this disruptive practice is addressed and the best way to start is to put the picket sign down and get back to work. Please let me know if I can help in any way in dealing with the problem. Alansohn (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop

You need to step back and learn how Wikipedia works and all the features it has before you run around accusing people of being liars and cheaters and committing nothing but utter bullocks as you stated. Guy looked through your deleted contributions because he assumed that's what you were upset and posted that thread on AN. He misinterpreted things. It's been corrected by others on there. We all move on. Metros (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy made a hideous error - which he appears unwilling to apologise for. Look at his list, and tell me then that his comment was in any way appropriate. Not one of the articles I have created have been deleted, the articles on his list are ones I have dabbed, or proposed for deletion, or identified as hoaxes, or userpages where I left warnings about vandalism, or successful merges I proposed, or categories which I got renamed. He says the list makes him think I may have a problem. Now, who is out of order here, him or me? DuncanHill (talk)
Dude. Look. Here's the deal. Contributions=any edit made to an article made by any editor whether they created the article or not. When he shows you the deleted contributions, it means it shows your contributions (aka any edit you ever made) to any article that was deleted that you edited regardless of the context of your edit. You asked to see your deleted contributions. He showed them to you. You're getting upset. He can't figure out why. None of us can figure out why. You're clearly getting upset about deletions so he assumed (as many of us have) that it's because some of the articles you felt a sense of ownership of were deleted somewhere along the way. Does this seem clear to you at all? Metros (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I am upset because he clearly did not look at my contributions when he said he thought there was a problem with my edits. If he had looked at the list he produced, he would have seen what my contributions were, namely productive and beneficial to the Wikipedia. He ignored the context and the content of my edits and then accused me of having a problem. The list, as I have pointed out, even includes article that HAVE NOT BEEN DELETED. I do not believe that such a level of inaccuracy and disregard for the facts has any place on Wikipedia. I thought I had made it clear that I objected to certain aspects of the way that articles are speedied, and the lack of oversight of speedy deletions by the community. Had an article I created been speedied, you can be sure that I would have mentioned it. Indeed, in the immediately preceeding thread about George Cross recipients (said thread being closely liked with the "speedy" thread), I think I made it perfectly clear that I was not the creating editor of the article which had been speedied. If he is going to carry on accusing editors of having problems with their contributions based on such a blatant misreading of the evidence, then he is going to upset a lot more editors and damage Wikipedia by driving away productive and commited people. DuncanHill (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and "none of us" can understand? None of whom? DuncanHill (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Once again you need to step back and learn Wikipedia. The whole "articles still exist thing" that you're talking about and accusing the Wikipedia database of being a liar right now for is not wrong. Those articles were, at one time, deleted. They have since been recreated. So your edits to them were deleted when those pages were deleted. Someone, at a later point, then recreated the article. So that's why they show up on your deleted contributions. Because your contributions have, in fact, been deleted from the article. Metros (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
So that makes it alright for Guy to say I have a problem with my edits? South Crofty I actually got reinstated after I removed a copyvio from it - is that a problematic edit? Or would it be better not to have an article at all? DuncanHill (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, before we go any further. Please show me the exact diff where Guy said that there is a problem with your edits. I need to see what you're talking about here with this "he says I'm a terrible, horrible editor" drama before I comment further. Metros (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The diff is here [2]. It's also linked from the first sentence of the section entitled "The Straw" above. BTW, Associateship of the Camborne School of Mines is showing history from BEFORE it appears in Guy's list - so was that deleted and reinstated? DuncanHill (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you not read the thread before coming here? DuncanHill (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Please also look at the edits on the list, it is on Guy's talk page, or I have copied it here User:DuncanHill/My "deleted" contributions"!. And you still haven't said who "none of us" refers to. DuncanHill (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes I have. Are you referring to "I think you are doing something wrong, at least some of the time. That is, I think you are not making the case for these articles. I disregard the MySpace blogger, but some of the rest might have potential if you ran them through WP:WIZARD or something."? If so, then it was clearly a mistake on Guy's part because he thought some of the articles were created by you just on a precursory glance. It's not a problem at all. He made a mistake, big deal. There's no reason to go batshit crazy here and quit because one user made one mistake which he has more than atoned for by helping you out by showing your deleted contributions (something that no admin is forced to do by any rule anywhere). Metros (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The Associateship of the Camborne School of Mines article is hard to decipher because of the page moves involved there, but the Wikipedia log is correct that several edits of yours have been deleted. Metros (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
It was delted during a move from Associateship of the Camborne School of Mines (ACSM) and then recreated. By the way I just looked at my own "deleted contributions" and see that there are about 3500. They come from tagging articles as speedy, moving bad titles to better ones and then deleting the redirect and several other reasons. I suspect that other than the newest of users most editors will have some deleted contibutions. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
It's Guy who should be told that! DuncanHill (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) A simple "sorry - I screwed up" would have done a whole lot more atoning than trying to justify himself by giving a list which shews just how wrong he is - and then still refusing to apologize. I know admins aren't required to have any redeeming social graces (that's a joke, I'm trying to lighten my mood with black humour, it's a British thing), but come on! How do you expect Wikipedia to improve if admins can get away with cock ups like that without even saying "whoops!" You (admins in general, not accusing you personally of anything) want productive editors? Start acting like it. Or, if you want to upset people and drive them away, just follow Guy's lead. BTW, I seem to remember he used to be pretty helpful, but that was a while ago. DuncanHill (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
With the way you were so hostile to him? You didn't deserve an apology for the way you went at him like that for trying to help you. If you actually read his comments, none of them were ever an attack on you. He offered you suggestions along the way to help you keep the articles that he thought you were upset about. He admits here that all of this was just based on his perceptions of it and not on any deep reading into this all. Metros (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Sod it - I'll just ignore him in future. If he is too lazy to check his facts then he can't offer anything that interests me. DuncanHill (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
You still haven't answered my question about who the "us" in "none of us" are. DuncanHill (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Have you ever stopped to consider the possibility that some or all of us might actually have been trying to help? Guy (Help!) 21:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not see how failing to read the thread properly, failing to read the deleted contributions list properly, and then jumping to wrong conclusions based on your failures is in any way helpful. You could have explained what you meant by "deleted contributions" - but you chose not to. You said you thought I was doing something wrong - but it is clear you had not actually looked at my contributions when you said that. I find that arrogant of you. You assumed that it was articles I had written being speedied which had upset me - yet no article created by me has been speedied, and I never said anything to suggest that. The "George Cross" thread immediately preceding the "Speedy" thread makes it clear that it was the treatment of an article by another editor which had raised my hackles. You implied I was motivated by "ownership" - again, you would not have suggested this had you properly checked my contributions before posting. You may have been trying to help - but you did so in a clumsy and thoughtless way which led to entirely unneeded stress and bad feeling. To post a list of dabs I have done and vandalism warnings I have issued in support of your statement about me "doing something wrong" just rubbed salt in the wound. DuncanHill (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you like to climb off your high horse for a minute and try some dialogue here? All this started with the stub you created on that George Cross winner. Well, I could have told you how to avoid that being deleted. It's not that hard, doesn't require much extra effort, and saves pain and futility. A good way is to include the citation itself - these are often impressively understated. You have copies of the London Gazette for these? Also citing the Gazette instead of a website full of adverts will lend weight. I am simply trying to help you not to have articles on such subjects deleted, that's all. The example of Eric Moussambani in WP:HOLE describes a common source of such problems: you know the person is notable, but the article itself is too short to make a case, and in the case of your GC article it was deleted because it didn't have enough context to properly understand what the subject was supposed to be. You and I know that the George Cross is a big deal, but most administrators and almost all newpage patrollers are American teenagers who know zip about British honours. It's not a big deal, but given the huge number of articles created and deleted every day - and bear in mind that the vast majority of such deletions are entirely uncontroversial - I thought I'd just point out how to stop it happening again, especially since you were obviously very irritated, given your brusque and sarcastic tone on the noticeboard. If you're not interested then I will leave you to it, it's not like I did any of the deletion myself. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Guy - I DID NOT CREATE THE STUB! Stop lying please - check your facts and save yourself the embaressment of talking rubbish! DuncanHill (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, so the problem is not that you are having articles deleted, but that you are rude, obnoxious and assume bad faith. Serves me right for trying to help. In future you can save time by simply stating up fornt that you will insult everybody who fails to agree with you, so the well-intentioned will now not to come near you. Have a nice day. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Guy, I know it can be difficult to admit one's mistakes, and easy to twist the facts when they indicate one has made a mistake, but please reexamine this whole issue keeping the following in mind:
  1. Duncan has never created any article which got deleted, and has clearly specified so several times.
  2. The "speedy" thread was a somewhat academic debate about the general problems caused by users not being able to see speedied articles.
  3. You have not paid enough attention to Duncan's deleted contributions and the speedy thread to realize those points.
  4. Instead, you have assumed that the deleted contributions are for articles created by Duncan and that the thread was intended to complain about deleting his contributions.
  5. You have concluded that there is something wrong with the way Duncan edits, and stated so.
  6. Duncan was offended by this conclusion, and naturally became hostile.
I could state a few more obvious things that happened later down the road, but you should be capable of realizing them on your own. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey dude

Approximately 10% of my edits have been deleted. Don't think that "proves" I'm a good or bad editor. Even if 10% were utter sh*te (quite a lot of them were tagging for speedy deletion, so that's not the case, but let's assume) if the other 90% are gold dust (also not the case, but let's go with it here) then... well, it's a simplistic way of assessing a contributor.

So, advice from me:

  1. ) No point arguing the detail of the assertion, as it's a flawed assertion anyway
  2. ) All reasonable Wikipedians welcome all constructive contributors anyway
  3. ) Go take a nice wikibreak and come back refreshed.

Finally, advice for everyone concerned here:

Please read Wikipedia:Boston Tea Party

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How annoying

Such a shame that this happened, but hopefully I'll see you around when you're back. Your contributions to the References Desks are generally lucid, polite and informed; what more could anyone want? We all encounter things on here to which the best reaction is removing yourself for a little while and returning calm, no matter who was right or wrong. Looking forward to your future contributions. Skittle (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cornwall

Hi Duncan, I have removed it for now. I think it would be inappropriate to ask other editors to pile in until Guy has given his response. I know this may seem hypocritical given the earlier lack of discussion, but I think it is the correct thing to do. By all means, if we need more eyes on this, and when Guy has responded (he seems to have gone offline now) then reinstate the comments. I hope this seems sensible. Thanks. Woodym555 (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine - and why I asked you! You are "one step removed" from the heated discussion, so I appreciate your judgment may be clearer than mine on this. Best wishes. DuncanHill (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
He is back online now. DuncanHill (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I had noticed. I don't think he took my comments in the spirit in which they were intended. Oh well. I will try and work in the text from the redirected article tommorrow. If you could find some reliable sources, ie not mirrors of wikipedia, that would be great. A redirect to a specific section should do it. I have looked around and can't enough sources to justify it having it's own article. Ask for help from Cornwall if you want;) (not all of it), and I am going to bed!! Woodym555 (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. ACSM is one of those things - in the world of Mining Engineering it is very highly regarded, but it's not the sort of thing that makes front pages! I'll have a dig about and see what I can turn up. Sleep well. DuncanHill (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elias of Dereham

Done. There's often a DNB link to the left side of ONDB entries ... the DNB text is normally PD. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, note the cite web template in Elias, and the references & notes at the foot. Dictionary of National Biography#First series contents gives you a handy lookup table for the date of publication and the volume number. ODNB gives you the original author name & article title. (Oh - and the URL just needs to be changed to the new article's number - see the ONDB URL. You'll grok the pattern) It's all I've been doing for days, after User:Frendraught dropped 450 or so excellent DNB articles on us in short order! --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Copyright is lifetime of the author + 70 years. I got a bit freaked out about UK copyright over the weekend, but I did a check on 8 random DNB authors, and all had died before 1937. So I'd say yes, fine to cut & paste from the ODNB DNB pages, but in fact there's a chance a very small proportion of the DNB authors might have died after 1937, in which case that article will still be copyright. It's a bit of a pain, really, but google often turns up enough info on the author to quell fears. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I like the fact that many of the DNB articles refer to other DNB articles ... it's a very rich source & is filling in many corners. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/DNB if you're ever bored. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
John Mawe worked out very well last night though, depending on time zones, I'm sure we all should have gone to bed a little earlier than we did. I've had a look at a couple of his books this evening & find there are some rather tasty colour plates in them - sadly not of the man himself, but of minerals & shells. I'll add a couple a little later tonight & update the DYK entry accordingly. I'd not come across the Oxford Digital Library; thanks for that. I'll have a hunt around it - I'm always interested in caches of PD books, so feel free to tip me off to any new ones than PG, Google Books, Microsoft Live Books & Internet Archive. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Damned nonsense

Hi Duncan. It was Hans Richter, the conductor. Thanks for pointing out the need to disambiguate, which I shall now do forthwith.

I've just become aware of your announcement. I haven't read most of the above, but all I will say is that if you leave, whoever you're having a fight with will win by default. Wikipedia is more important than any one single contributor, but it cannot get by without many excellent contributors. Please stay. (I'm still chuckling about whoever wrote "utter bullocks", btw). -- JackofOz (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're sticking around. If you liked what Richter said, you might also like some of these. As for Rowse/Oxford/Shakespeare, I'm happy to discuss almost anything almost any time with almost any one, and where would we be without differences of opinion. He's very welcome. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Cross outline page

Hi there, I've set up a skeleton for producing GC articles here. If you copy and paste the text into a GC article, then drop in the content, it will produce an article formatted something like Bennett Southwell. It will do as well for newly created or existing articles and I'll try to fit it into some of the existing ones. If you have any comments, additions or suggestions please add them to the page. I'm posting this onto the user talk pages of Nick mallory, DuncanHill, Wolvereness, RHB, Woodym555, Hammer1980,David Underdown and HeartofaDog. If any of you would like to change the skeleton, please go ahead and do so! I am fairly new to Wikipedia and have probably made some gross errors. If you want to discuss any of this (and have the rest of this group see your discussion) maybe we could discuss it on the talk page for the skeleton article? Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 09:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fox/Carlyle

I don't know if you have found this already, but there are letters from the Carlyles to a couple of Foxes here - http://carlyleletters.dukejournals.org/cgi/recipient/start?coll=RECIPIENT&term=F DuncanHill (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No I hadn't. There's also John Stuart Mill letters to Barclay and to the girls online JS Mill letters. Vernon White . . . Talk 14:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Mawe

Sorry about the broken reference, but I've at last found the problem and fixed it. Xn4 01:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you check that the links to google books I've just inserted work propwerly? They work for me, but would like them double-checked - I've linked some of his works, so readers can go straight to the texts mentioned. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, those links (and others to archive.org and Oxford Digital Books) are all working for me. Xn4 13:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You are obviously a PISKIE!

I have noted that you have made numerous valid contributions to Wikipedia, frequently to Cornish related subjects, and that you have opinions and are not afraid to politely air them. I therefore conclude that you are a WP:PISKIE and doubtless up to no good. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC) ps. Do you spell it piskie or pisky, as in past%&#?

I'm sorry that things have gone a bit sour (like Clotted Cream?) and you are taking a breather, but I really hope you will be back at some stage. Mark.

Blast - and you have returned already! Oh, well, at least I have the opportunity to do a little piskie joshing! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MoS heads-up

Whatever heads up means. Your Richard Edmonds (1801 - 1886) should probably be renamed Richard Edmonds (something_or_other), along the lines of all of the John Smith articles. I'm sure there's something the the Manual of Style about this, but I've looked for ages & not found the advice. Still, I don't think we generally disambiguate with dates. And on Richard Edmonds, or for future such occasions, you might consider using a template, such as those set out in Template talk:Otherpeople. Some editors may find "Not to be confused with" a mite casual. Thanks for your edits to James Tennant - much appreciated. Sorry if I'm teaching granny to suck eggs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh. And google books links can - if you like - be cut back to http://books.google.com/books?id=H-k3AAAAMAAJ, so that you don't instantly plunge someone into the book, but into google's main page for the book. (Again, in case you didn't know. As to which link you actually use, I'm ambivalent ... I used to put the longer links in, as you have. Nowadays I use shorter links, but I couldn't rightly tell you why.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead year template

You were asking about a death year template where only the death of birth and death is known. It exists here: Template:death year and age

Richard Edmonds {{death year and age|1886|1801 }}

returns :
Richard Edmonds 1886 (aged 84–85)

--Esemono (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Hunt

You said: Hi again, hope you are well. Would you know if Robert Hunt (scientist) was the same Robert Hunt who contributed several articals on geologists and other scientists to the DNB? I've been creating some articles based on DNB bios, and it would be good if I could authorlink the references. DuncanHill (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies of Scientists

I don't know whether Robert Hunt (1807–1887) was the same as the contributor of 12 articles to DNB.
  • Beverly, Charles James (1788–1868), surgeon and naturalist [orig.]
  • Bishop, John (1797–1873), surgeon [orig.]
  • Bury, Edward (1794–1858), engineer [orig.]
  • Crosse, Andrew (1784–1855), electrician [orig.]
  • Cumming, Joseph George (1812–1868), geologist and Church of England clergyman [orig.]
  • Curtis, William (1746–1799), botanist and entomologist [orig.]
  • Dalzell, Nicol Alexander (1817–1877), botanist [orig.]
  • Davy, John (1790–1868), physiologist and anatomist [orig.]
  • Dodd, George (bap. 1782, d. 1827), civil engineer [orig.]
  • Edmonds, Richard (1801–1886), antiquary and geologist [orig.]
  • Edwards, Edward (1803–1879), manufacturer of aquariums [orig.]
  • Evans, Brooke (1797–1862), nickel refiner [orig.]

It seems possible, as none of his subjects died after his death date. DNB are quite responsive to enquiries from users. Best --Vernon White . . . Talk 10:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an odd one. It seems near certain it is the same Hunt, and Hunt's ONDB article mentions DNB. But ODNB's contributors index normally points a contributer to his own article - see this example in which Hunt is not so linked. Surely an oversight. Get on the email blower thingie & ask 'em. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Done - will update you both when I get an answer. DuncanHill (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
It's fairly dense text, but this establishes that he was a biographer (and might give you another sentence or two for the article). --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Good stuff, have added it as an external link to the Hunt article, will come back to it when have more time. DuncanHill (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the library links stuff. I've learnt at least 4 new things from it, which is great. You've come across microsoft book search, I take it. I think the content overlaps greatly with Archive.org. And also search syntax like this, for Project Gutenberg or even wikipedia - great for finding out who obscure people are, such as in this example. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Microsoft booksearch I hadn't found yet - and I was impressed by the Sturgeon link when I saw it! Now, I must get ready for camp (taking the Cubs and Scouts away for the weekend). DuncanHill (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Well that's a digital camera opportunity ... bring back some images for articles. (A wikipedian is never off duty &c). Have fun. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This collection of Robert Hunt papers at BMNH indicates that he was into biographical work in the 1860s.Vernon White . . . Talk 23:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Folklore

You might like to note that selections of his folklore collection has been republished by Tormark and some are still in print and widely available in Cornwall. See Cornwall Books] and Cornwall County Library catalogue. Also the lectures on science that he gave whilst Secretary to the Poly were well-received, according to RW Fox's children, in their journals.--Vernon White . . . Talk 17:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lecture at the Poly

From the Journal of Caroline Fox

"1841: October 5 - Attended Hunt's lecture on Chemistry; very pretty, popular, explosive and luminous."

(Presumably at the Poly). Vernon White . . . Talk 21:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photography

Bookseller on AbeBooks:RESEARCHES ON LIGHT: AN EXAMINATION OF ALL THE PHENOMENA CONNECTED WITH THE CHEMICAL AND MOLECULAR CHANGES PRODUCED BY THE INFLUENCE OF THE SOLAR RAYS; EMBRACING ALL THE KNOWN PHOTOGRAPHIC PROCESSES, AND NEW DISCOVERIES IN THE ART. Included are reports on Hunt's earliest experiments on solar energy and its effect involoving both vegetation and metallic salts or compounds. An introductory chapter on the discoveries of daguerre and Fox Talbot is exceedingly useful as it establishes the range of various light sensitive materials applicable to photography including platinum, iron and antimony. His is the first use of the word 'platinotype' with reference to platinum prints. The book as a whole is one of the most crucial and one of the earliest theoretical treatises on the science, and differs slightly from the later, 1854 edition, except in some more recent discoveries." (from the Arno Press description THE LITERATURE OF PHOTOGRAPHY).

Pasted from ABEBOOKS. Vernon White . . . Talk 22:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 23rd November 2007 - Away for a few days

Off camping with my Cubs and Scouts for the weekend - see you all Sunday evening. DuncanHill (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For protecting my user page. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Quiller Couch

I left a reply with apology at User talk:Coppertwig#Richard Quiller Couch. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC) &I replied to your replies. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Usually, if it is a clear cut case and the person adding it agrees, you can just be bold and remove tags. I think the admin bit is more to stop people from edit warring over copyvio tags. If you are using common sense and it isn't a contentious edit to any of the parties involved, I can't imagine any scenario where someone would raise a stink about removing that template.--Isotope23 talk 16:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks Isotope, very helpful. DuncanHill (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 27 November 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Mawe, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 01:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(moved to my user page)

Thank you! My first DYK! DuncanHill (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the assistance. BeerMatt (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)