No, another editor seems to think that a historical fact is relevant to certain modern claims. I don't think so, I just think the fact is notable enough for inclusion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Used to be before marriage and offspring but sadly I find little time for it these days. My main interest is muzzle loading infantry rifles. Justintalk11:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the first place, thank you very much for making the effort of helping us out in the Gib article. Any outside help is wonderful (we get so tangled, I guess one thinks twice before getting in the middle of the crossfire ;) ). I am posting in your page to point out that, if you look carefully in the middle of the Pro-Inclusion arguments discussion (a bit of a mess, I'm afraid, that's why I thought this post might be helpful), you can find a couple of additional suggestions that I have made -and for which I've tried to find some empirical support)here and here. If you look at the discussion, you will see that my arguments have been answered, (I don't wanna hide it) but I would be very grateful if you took a look at them and included them in the list. Thanks again. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Richard, I see you like your RFC discussions - you're a brave man!
I'm still of the opinion that including the claim gives it undeserved credibility, and that was also the opinion of at least two other editors who no longer seem to be participating in the discussion (Talk:Marble_Hill,_South_Australia#Recap). I know this is already at RFC, but I found it difficult to understand the question as it was phrased (even being familiar with the dispute!) and am not surprised there has not been a widespread response to it. Would you be prepared to take it to RFC again once the current one expires, phrased from an outsider's perspective? I'd do it myself but I'd rather make this as objective as possible. This issue has filled up enough talk page bandwidth.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy enough to do so. I'm not sure if it will help much, but RfCs are often interesting. I've spent some time doing Wikignome-type improvements to articles, but now I'm expressing my support for Wikipedia in some new ways. One is by trying to achieve consensus in a few RfCs where I feel I have sufficient understanding to do so.
Thanks YH for your expressed continued Anglo-British-United KingdomCaucasian v Kaurna cross-cultural logic bias excluding any Pre-eminent enduring Sovereign Dominion pre-1836. If as you say Richard, that the "Marble Hill, South Australia" Article is only about the "building", why is there then so much by YH about the Governors or so much else? Where then is the Wikipedia Article for the Marble Hill area like there now thanks to YH is for Cherryville or the rest of the Marble Hill 22Ha property? Remembering that there was a relatively recent land subdivision started by our former DEC Minister Hon John Hill MP Kaurna & finished by Hon Gail Gago MLC leading to the recent sale of the 22Ha by our current South Australian GovernmentAboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation & Department of Environment and ConservationMinister Hon Jay Weatherill MP Cheltenham (NOTE: the "con" in both Reconciliation and Conservation) for a mere $819 000 shortly after selling more Kaurna-Ramindjeri Yerta at Oaklands Estate Reserve to Marion City Council for a mere $2.00. The "building" as you say is mostly a bushfired ruin back to the Kaurna Yerta sandstone rocks from whence it was built. Sadly I continue to fail to fully comprehend your assumptivelogic lacking in shared established international standard qualified geographic and historic premises. Especially now late yesterday afternoon that Lawyer Editor Shaun Berg has now book launched by former Australian High Court Justice Hon Michael Kirby "Coming to Terms" on King William IV South Australia Letters Patent19 Feb1836. Thus I now submit ETYMOLOGY OF KAURNA PLACENAMES by Dr Robert Amery in particular I now refer you both to the "REFERENCES" and contextually to "Gumeracha" ngarrumuka (brain), "Uraidla" yurridla (ears) & "Piccadilly" pikodla (eyebrows) "Much of this material has been collated and published in several popular books on South Australian placenames, notably Praite and Tolley (1970, Manning (1986) and Cockburn (1908; 1984; 1990)" [I'm wondering if 1908 is a chronological typo!?]Mifren (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is, as you say, about the building. And the people who lived in it. And, I am arguing, brief referenced comments about land claims to the site, which the present version seems to cover quite adequately, possibly more than adequately. Mifren, to reiterate, we are discussing an encyclopedic article about a mildly-notable building, not a history of land grabs and claims. Your material above simply does not belong in this article, though if you can find well-referenced stuff from good secondary sources it might find a home elsewhere in Wikipedia. While we're at it, I'd prefer to keep most of this debate on the talk page of Marble Hill. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
