Welcome!

Hello, Govynn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!  —SMALLJIM  19:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Changing South West England (an official Government region) to South West Britain to suit your political leanings is both factually incorrect and disruptive. You won't get too many warnings before your account is blocked. Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 16:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too many edit conflicts going on - I'll wait till you finish. But please don't add non-neutral Cornwall-related stuff, which has been much discussed here in the past, as it will likely be reverted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you refer to the "South West administrative region" as though it still exists. See Regions of England - although the regions are still used statistically, they are no longer used for administration. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you recommend distinguishing the former administrative region from south-west England in a general sense which may or may not correspond geographically to the aforesaid former administrative unit? Since Local_authority_leaders'_boards do still exist along geographical boundaries co-extensive with the former administrative regions, it cannot be said that the regions no longer have any administrative role at all? Govynn (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The regions are no longer used (apparently) for UK government administration, but are used for local authority coordination as well as statistics. There is no need for a separate article on "south-west England in a general sense" as it is undefinable - we already have, for example, West Country. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anglo-Cornish is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglo-Cornish until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 08:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...can you please use the edit summary box to give a brief description of the edits you are making. This allows other users, when viewing a page's history, to see at a glance what changes were made to the page, rather than trolling through perhaps hundreds of edits to find the particular edit they are looking for. The edit summary box is located below the main edit screen but before the save button. Also, can you consider using the preview button. This allows you to make sure you are happy with your edit before saving. The more people use the preview button the less strain there is on the servers and the less likelihood of edit conflicts. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 09:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England#Tendentious editing and POV pushing by Cornish nationalist, which you are welcome to join in. DuncanHill (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Les Merton requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 20:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cornuphobia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Apparent neologism, no match in the OED or in Google Books for this term being in use.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fæ (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anti-Cornish sentiment is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Cornish sentiment until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ironholds (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few thoughts, isn't it true that due to the high levels of tourism and the like, that the coastal regions of Cornwall tend to be far more developed and in fairness, richer? There's a big contrast when you compare Padstow to Callington for instance. You will find a similar case in Devon, where I personally grew up in an impoverished moorland community (68% unemployment among adults, urban rot) - and yet only an hour away was the wealthy and exclusive South Hams on the coast. Could be notable that the coastal regions of Cornwall are more similar to the Coastal regions of the southern UK rather than the North.

Another thing I find interesting is the prevalence of Cornish nationalist areas depending on wealth distribution, it became apparent to me that poorer, larger towns such as Callington have less of a, say "Cornish spirit" compared to the more wealthy and developed coastal areas. Hm, hope this has been interesting. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do you have any citations to support this? Govynn (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's your subject area, I wanted your opinion on it. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to move your definition (and sources) to the wiktionary:upcountry article if it's not going to be more than a definition. You could then Template:db-transwiki the Wikipedia article. Regards, Brammers (talk/c) 11:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It will probably develop into more than a simple definition. Govynn (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Upcountry (usage in Cornish dialect) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Definition already at wikt:upcountry

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest does the term Upcountry apply to Scotland or is it just England. -->

I am taking a break from Wikipedia, as such I leave it to others to build on articles that I have created or expanded. It might not be that useful to contact me on this page.

Don't 'ee scat 'un down before the 'ouse es built up! - a comment on some of the deletion proposals that have been laid against some articles I have contributed to (see WP:DEMOLISH) Govynn (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me. I know it's discouraging but you're not the only one who gets this, you just need to keep trying.--Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but to avoid the problem it's often helpful to develop your ideas in a sandbox like this before going public with them, and also make sure that you understand how WP works. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Linguistic Barnstar
		For building a bonafide, source article out of nothing in 2 day at Anglo-Cornish, I award you this The Linguistic Barnstar. -- Selket Talk 05:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's true that you disagree so strongly with Wikipedia policy, then maybe Wikipedia isn't the site for you? — Fly by Night (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC) . I'm out of here. Bye Govynn (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Govynn (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Alternative regional geographies of the British Isles, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Fly by Night (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Alternative regional geographies of the British Isles, you may be blocked from editing. — Fly by Night (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what information was incorrect, this means absolutely nothing to me. I'm not sticking around here at wikipedia any longer anywayGovynn (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we start with Corby, Nottinghamshire being a Scottish town? — Fly by Night (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a well known and excepted fact (not a so called 'Crazy conspiracy theory') that The town of Corby does have large ethnically Scottish population. Therefore it is reasonable to argue that culturally it should be considered part of or closer to Scotland than England. They sell deep-fried Mars Bars Pizzas and Haggis in the Chippy after all. --EditMonkey (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)EditMonkey (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has to like our policies, but you do have to follow them, and a core one is no original research -- WP:NOR. So you'd need reliable sources calling it a Scottish Town, perhaps attributed. Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Alternative regional geographies of the British Isles has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Crazy conspiricy theory-type page. A town in the middle of England is in Scotland, or so a family say. Remind you of an episode of Family Guy? Petoria, was it called?

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fly by Night (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional concerns were:

Original research/synthesis of ideas apparently motivated by a dissatisfaction with Wikipedia's policies.

Original research is clearly in evidence, as well as an apparent complete disregard for encyclopaedic practice incl. the use of "...check google for yourself" as a reference.

Cited sources are either unreliable, not sources, or do not support the claims made. This also violates WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:POINT.

(Forwarded from tagged page). – Athaenara ✉ 03:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your additions to St Dennis, Cornwall, but I've reverted them for a couple of reasons. The section on the incinerator ended up reading like a commentary on the local political decisions and was therefore unencyclopedic. The history section was good, but was just a direct copy-and-paste from the BBC website. If you'd like to re-include the information, it should be re-written. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

look, why do you think you know better about St. Dennis than I do? stop quoting standard Wikipedia jargon at me. Govynn (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't say he knew better. He simply stated you should rewrite what you wrote in an encyclopaedic manner, avoiding a point of view, and asked you not to introduce copyright violating materials. Before giving out about wikipedia "jargon" and policies you should try reading them. If you don't like them then go elsewhere. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 06:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Retro web design has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reliable references for the term retro web design or its use today

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 06:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HI,

I just wanted to say I loved you Article on Alternative regional geographies of the British Isles it is the best thing I have read on hear. I notice you have been having trouble with the Pedants on this sight as well. some people seem intent on forcing their world view on everyone else. Take a look at this discussion I had about one of my additions with Nev1 Talk:Pitcairngreen.

Best

EditMonkey

PS used to live in Falmouth so I love the Cornish stuff as well - keep up the good work

EditMonkey (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello,
please restrict yourself to editing from only one account in the future, per policy.
Kind regards, Amalthea 09:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will add to that - it makes it very much harder to counter the anti-Cornish POV warriors when there is so much blatant sockpuppetry and anti-consensus vandalism and edit warring from editors who identify as pro-Cornish. DuncanHill (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]