User talk:DuncanHill/ArchiveJune2018

Thanks!

For the drive-by wikilinking of Draft:Arthur_J._Boucot, it's tedious to do on mobile --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:77 (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I'll probably come back to it from time to time is I can turn up anything helpful to add. DuncanHill (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

That would be great. I will add sources as soon as I can, and enough to get it main space ready.--2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:77 (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Aston Cantlow revision.

Duncan, Thanks for the edit [[1]] on Aston Cantlow but I have reverted them for the following reason. I can see why you'd think that Councilors should change to counsellors ie those acting as advisors rather than say, in modern speak town councilors. However, I've checked a number of sources directly quoting from Matthew Paris and all use the term councilors. This may be because in addition to being advisors to the King they also held Royal office, such as was the case with De Neville. I have therefore on that basis reverted the edit to the original spelling. Best Regards Argrogan (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Argrogan: What are these sources? The ODNB uses "evil counsellors", as in this article about "King John's evil counsellors" and in the articles about both the first and the second William de Cantilupes, who are the most relevant to Aston Cantlow, and in their article about Hugh de Neville. "Councillors" seems both anachronistic and to defy the sense of Wendover's and Paris's objections to them, they were evil because of the counsel they gave to John. And Wendover and Paris of course wrote in Latin, "consiliarios" is the word used, which translates as "counsellors", not "councillors". DuncanHill (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: Nicholas Vincent in his book on Peter Roche uses the Councillors translation of counsiliarious iniquissimous

[2] and another here on the origins of the House of Commons[3] and by Essex records office here [4]. You may be correct that is anachronistic say "councilors not counsellor", but councilors does seem to be translation accepted and used by academics. Now, I don't know why that's the case but as I suggested above it may be to reflect that they held Royal positions "councilors" and who would as part of their duties advise; whereas a "counsellor" would only offer advice but would not necessarily hold a position of office. Any way its a most interesting moot point and I'd like to find a definitive answer as to why that's the translation used. Best regards Argrogan (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

why labeling anti FederalReserve as neo-Nazis?

why you labeling Anti-FederalReserve as Neo-Nazis & antiSemitic? you reverting my edit on Rothschild family.45.116.232.43 (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It is clear that many of the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories attacking the Rothschild family are being spread by neo-Nazis. Your edits were unhelpful, to say the least. DuncanHill (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

How come being anti-FederalReserve is labelled as antiSemitic? just tell me this. FederalReserve is private bank controlling USD and much of US economy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.232.48 (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2017

What has this to do with the article about the Rothschild family? DuncanHill (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I've mentioned you at AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is SiTrew at RfD. For clarity this is a mention in the context of a thread about Si Trew, not a complaint about you. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I got the notification at the top of the page. I had forgot that redirect. DuncanHill (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up, if you'd like

Hi there. I wanted to re-state my willingness to have a conversation with you about your disagreement regarding my edits of the Rothschild Family page. I appreciate your initiative in involving a third party, and despite their assessment of the situation, do not feel comfortable making any edits to the article without attempting to directly speak with you first. And I apologize for my snippiness, I understand that, if you are on guard for a certain type of ideology, you might take issue with a formerly inactive account (I just finished my exams and haven't touched WP in four years because using WP in university is a "no-no"). What do you think is the best approach, from here? Di4gram (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Misleading summary

Thanks for the heads up. I had already noticed it and I am about to run a script to fix it retrospectively add another minor edit to add a new comment to the history. It is the second time it has happened, and I don't know how the text is changing, but for the rest of the run I am going to lock the comment, so it can not accidentally happen again. -- PBS (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Oversight

Hey - don't worry, there's absolutely zero chance of your being blocked over this. I'm quite surprised that it fell between the cracks. That doesn't happen. My experience is that stuff gets dealt with before I get a chance to look at it, and because of that I don't end up doing a lot of oversight. Also, if in doubt, report it. Better to be safe than sorry. I'm afraid that I do agree that there can be a fine line between what can be just revision/deleted and what needs suppression. If you use irc, then that's often faster. Doug Weller talk 21:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The blocking worry was if I responded to an ANI thread which an admin had shut down to make sure he had the final word, apparently being the person with the concern doesn't entitle me to say if the concern has been dealt with. I do appreciate your comments here, but you and your colleagues do need to make sure requests aren't left hanging for hours. I had time to not get to sleep for hours, eventually fall asleep, and oversleep the next morning, make a cup of tea, then check the article, and post on ANI before anything was done. That sort of delay does not encourage reporting - or rather, it discourages people from doing it again after the experience. I did suggest to Thryddulf (?sp) that his advice abut emailing functionaries if there was no response from Oversight should be added to the automated email. There are far too many "beware of the leopard" notices at the places editors look for help on Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I've added the rev/del irc channel to the contact page. I still don't think you could have done anything that would get you blocked unless you went wild with reverting, which I don't think you would have done. I'm not sure about Functionaries but I guess it will be discussed there. The usual situation is that we are more likely to worry about not doing enough OS work to keep the tools because others beat us to it! Doug Weller talk 18:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Clement-Talbot revert

So was it no help to you? Sorry about that.
Eddaido (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Then would you mind very much telling me why it did not make sense to you? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Hi @DuncanHill:, I work For Artificial Solutions, the creator of Lyra (Virtual Assistant), formerly Indigo (Virtual Assistant). I have started a discussion for request for deletion of our page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyra_(virtual_assistant). Because the creator of the page no longer exists at the company, it has become increasingly difficult to remove this page. We are obligated to remove the name "Indigo" from this page completely. As the new name Lyra does not have any history online, and since this page is considered to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic, I suggest it be deleted. You can find my request here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lyra_(virtual_assistant). Thank you for your time. Justin.mota (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Justin.mota: No legal agreement into which you may have entered applies to Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not exist for the convenience of your company. Also, please stop posting the same, or a substantially similar, message on different editors' talk pages (see WP:CANVASS). You have opened a Request for Deletion, and that is the appropriate venue for any discussion. There is no need to "ping" an editor when posting on their talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Amazon spam

? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If you have a question, it should go before the question mark. DuncanHill (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

What is Amazon Spam? Keith-264 (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Amazon spam is using amazon.co.uk to cite a book, by simply inserting a url to a amzon page showing the book, rather than filling out the cite book form correctly.

Oh, I thought that it was using ASIN numbers instead of ISBN. I don't like it when people add a giant Goolag url to a book citation. Keith-264 (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi User:DuncanHill, as you are active on WikiProject Cornwall I thought you might be able to add to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded#Add Cornwall‎. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1871 disestablishments in England

A tag has been placed on Category:1871 disestablishments in England requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

want to create new page. need help.

hello there, i want to create a page for indian politician. "Ramlal jat" is an active politician from india. so please help me on this issue. i'm share details about page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooja79ch (talk • contribs) 18:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Interwar Britain

Sorry about that. I copy/pasted a section then started going through it line by line and revising text and updating footnotes. I'm still at it--give me an hour or so to finish. thanks. Rjensen (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

No, that is not acceptable. Use your sandbox if you are going to do that sort of thing, don't screw up articles by buggering up the references. The way you constantly tinker, copying from one article to another, in a merry-go-round of editing is profoundly unhelpful to both readers and editors. DuncanHill (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Rjensen: I've put the "Under Construction" tag on the page, it would be appropriate for you to replace it with {{in use}} while you are actively editing. But again, PLEASE use your sandbox, that way you can a) get the references right first time, b) make up your mind about which lumps of text from other articles you actually want to use, and c) stop filling up the edit history with inadequately summarised edits. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

ok I'm done--thaks. The problem in using the sandbox is that the historic chain of edits gets lost, and maintenance of the chain is a requirement for the copyright rules followed by Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

If you were to do the initial cut and paste, with appropriate attributive edit summary, and then do the fixes all in one go (having worked them out in your sandbox), this would overcome any possible objection on licence and attribution grounds. Alternatively, you could actually write instead of copying. DuncanHill (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

And you're not finished are you? Three edits in the three minutes after saying you'd finished. DuncanHill (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, DuncanHill. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Rjensen (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, DuncanHill. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, DuncanHill. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me, but I do not feel able to commit to this at the present time. DuncanHill (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Chatham House - Its History and Inhabitants

Hi Duncan.

you sent me a message on my Talk page underChatham House - Its History and Inhabitants

"Hi, this was by C. E. Carrington, see the notice on the Chatham House website here, and the entry for the original 1959 work in the National Library of Australia catalogue here. DuncanHill (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)"

I knew it was by C.E.Carrington as I footnoted it correctly a number of times but I just did not think it was the C.E. Charrington (Army Officer) as the Wikipedia entry is headed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Carrington_(British_Army_officer) that he was being linked to and could find no other. The Wikipedia heading is very misleading as is is the initial summary paragraph of his life, it seems to me. He was an eminent Professor of Commonwealth Relations at the Royal Institute of International Affairs until 1962, whom I knew and I was surprised when I thought he did not have a Wikipedia entry. It really should be headed as such or as (historian) or (writer) or (professor) I would have thought. I removed the link to the Wikipedia page because I was mislead by the originally Wikipedia heading and descriptive paragraph of him and in my initial rapid scan of it I missed the Chatham House work reference, where I knew he was involved. On re-reading it over it clearly is the same [Professor] C.E. Charrington and is the correct link. My apologies all around. It might be worth changing the heading of his entry to (historian) or some such more correct heading. Many thanks for bringing this to my attention and re-instating the link. Much appreciated.William Macadam (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Duncan, your edit to Professor Carrington's Wikipedia page is a great improvement. I will see if I can add the odd thing when I get a moment. Many thanks for being on top of this. William Macadam (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Duncan, I have expanded the C.E.Carrington article as you suggested. I hate doing this as it required much rearranging of the hard work someone has already put into it. However I do believe it better represents the entirety of this distinguished man's career and hope the earlier posters recognise that and are not upset. There was much as you will see that was not it the previous entry.

I also notice that a number of Wikipedia entries in the past, as his did, describe someone as a military officer or soldier in brackets after their name which is misleading as it indicates that that was their career when they served their country only in time of war. I am sure my edit can be improved but it better represents the entirety of the man, I hope.William Macadam (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, DuncanHill. AfC submissions Random submission ~6 weeks 1,108 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, thanks for thinking of me, but I do not feel able to commit to this at the moment. DuncanHill (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

MPG - causes of significant improvement?

Reminds me of the old practical joke where, when someone buys a new car, a coworker sneaks out to the parking lot every day and adds a gallon or two of gas to its tank. (This worked better in the days before locking gas caps.) The new car owner then starts bragging about how, in addition to its other wonderful features, his car gets amazing gas mileage. After a month or two the prankster stops, leading the new car owner to wonder why his car is suddenly getting worse mileage and eventually taking it to the dealership with a complaint which makes no sense. -- ToE 22:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Lauren Book

The reason I put Florida Senator Lauren Book in the Category:Sex offenders in Florida is because this is her signature issue. Read the article on her. Call her office, I’m sure she’d love it if she were on a list so that someone looking for information on sex offenders in Florida would be referred to her. So, with your leave, I’m putting her back in. I want you to mark your warning as deleted because what I did follows completely BLP policy. In retrospect, I should have explained this on her Talk page deisenbe (talk)

• • I disagree with you that it’s “wholly inappropriate.” Could we get a third party to look at this? deisenbe (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Simon, 1st Viscount Simon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walter Runciman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I have now corrected the link, DuncanHill (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Andrew D. (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Too late, I have already complained about your failure to give a notice, so I assume you have only bothered to place the notice in an attempt to deflect criticism. You had time to post elsewhere before coming here. Very poor. Do not ever post on my page again - unless it is a notice required by eg AN or ANI, in which case don't wait ten minutes next time. DuncanHill (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Note to self - Andrew is not unconnected to the other two editors involved in the dispute. DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Please remove the "click here to leave new message" thing at the top as it does not work on a fully protected page, add a "retired" banner to the top of the page, and note in the edit summary that protection must be removed if the editor starts editing again DuncanHill (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done However please follow up with User_talk:Bishonen#Jytdog's_talk. @Bishonen: has placed this page under full protection, and the action is a bit contentious and being discussed there. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I asked there already. Bish hasn't bothered to reply. DuncanHill (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) just saw you already edited there - if you are at an impasse you can open a thread at WP:ANI for further administrative review. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't open a thread at ANI as it is impossible for me to inform Jytdog of it. DuncanHill (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The conflict would be between you (who wants to edit the page), and Bishonen (who protected it and you claim is ignoring your communication). Please note, if it hasn't been a reasonable time (a couple of days, or several hours after Bishonen has resumed editing since your message) - you should wait for a response first. This is not an "urgent" issue. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to help clarify the advice you were offered at ANI, although it's a requirement to notify people on their talk page when starting a discussion about them, if you are unable to do so for some reason it's acceptable if you simply note this either in the original ANI message or a followup as needed. This applies in cases where the user talk page is at a protection level that forbids you from editing and there is no subpage for messages to the editor with a lower privilege level. Also if an editor has asked someone to stay away from their talk page or if there is a formal i-ban. (Although notification of ANI threads is often an exception. And an editor may still get in trouble for pointless ANI threads, but them not notifying won't be a competent of that.) In fact, in very rare exceptions people don't notify even though they can e.g. indef socks, and that's normally accepted although it's still best to mention this. So the inability to notify doesn't prevent you starting an ANI discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you assist me on my new Elliott R. Corbett page

Duncan, I was the person that you asked to do a more complete entry in C.E.Carrington which I did.

I have now completed exhaustive research on an Elliott R. Corbett page which is in in my sandbox and can you advise how I transfer it from my Sandbox for review and publishing without loosing any of it?

I had been being asked to do this entry for a long time from people in Oregon and the US as I had access to the Elliott R. Corbett Archives. I had done one on his grandfather Henry W. Corbett (or most of that entry of a year's research into him). Others have put up Wikipedia entries on the Elliott R. Corbett House, The Pacific Building in Portland, Oregon, that he and his brothers built and owned, on the First National Bank Building (Portland, Oregon), that Elliott Corbett had built when he controlled the First National Bank, on the P Ranch, that he and his brothers had owned and on his two brothers Henry L. Corbett and Hamilton Corbett. So this Elliott Corbett entry fills in an important gap in knowledge about the person and period that historians and younger generations have been asking about. Can you advise on the transfer of this? I recently had another Wikipedia page that I created put up but I forget for the moment to process of transferring from my Sandbox and do not want to loose weeks of non-stop exhaustive research - or a part of it - in the process. I hope this is not inconveniencing you? You seem to know your stuff. Best regards,William Macadam (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Have I done this correctly?

Thanks, Duncan. Can you tell me if I have done it correctly for a main Wikipedia entry? Do I have to include anything for an editor/reviewer?William Macadam (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Just remind me what you mean about adding categories

I have never done that on any of my others before? Should I have? Thanks so much for your assistance and edits.William Macadam (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. You are tremendous. I will get to Categories when I can but if not others may edit them. I really appreciate your knowledgeable assistance. William Macadam (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Naples '44

Hi DuncanHill, How are you? I don't think you realise you have linked to a redirect. scope_creep (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to link to a redirect, and indeed is preferable when doing so avoids anachronisms or breaches of EngVar. In this case, the British English term Second World War is preferred to World War Two as the article is about a book written in British English by a British writer. DuncanHill (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for spotting my DAB error on Perkin Warbeck—double embarrassment as it was in the hatnote!--217.155.32.221 (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

TLS references and Kynaston

A case of link rot- the link takes you to a landing page for the Sun! --ClemRutter (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of adding a shedload of wikilinks to David Kynaston, so I'll need a couple more clues to be able to work out what you are on about! DuncanHill (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Re https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_house&oldid=827745779 for example. It used to be a nice article- I used it on a couple of occasions -but now is dead. It appears that the TLS are directing the links to a landing page - I suspect you should check any Times or TLS link. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Lawhitton

Lawhitton Rural has been a parish since 1894 when Lawhitton was abolished. My edit summary was about Polperro but I just removed the pipe and didn't modify the name of the parish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It was unclear what your edit summary was about. Cornwall Council calls it Lawhitton, the Cornwall Association of Local Councils calls it Lawhitton. DuncanHill (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I see you've merrily reverted and made further changes without bothering to reply. Hey ho, cheerio. DuncanHill (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

And I see from your talk page that other users have a problem with some of your parish naming choices. Aren't you restricted from anything to do with naming conventions? You seem to be sailing very close to the wind. DuncanHill (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought that further comment was to my original edit, not after the formations and abolishments I provided you details of.

Those were other alternative names, and the restrictions have nothing to do with how a parish is named in text. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I mistakenly thought you came here to discuss, not instruct. I provided sources that give the name as Lawhitton, not Lawhitton Rural. You ignored that. You are clearly not here to edit collaboratively, but rather to impose your own version, on articles, and on your Arbcom restrictions. DuncanHill (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't ignore that, I looked at them, as you can also see from Vision of Britain there was also Lawhitton Urban, I have provided sources in the article as well, the CP list anyway stated it is called Lawhitton Rural as well, along with OS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything. You looked at them, then ignored them. I see little point in continuing this thread here. If in future you disagree with any change I have made to any article then please raise it on the article talk page, not here. DuncanHill (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Nice one Duncan!

Tomtheman2 (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you advise me?

Duncan, I have today done an edit of the William S. Ladd page but it is coming up with an error notice and I cannot for the life of me find the problem?

Can you advise me? I really do apologise for bothering you. William Macadam (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Duncan, you are the greatest. Thanks a million for spotting and changing those. I have been trying for a couple of hours to spot them. Stupid me.William Macadam (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It's only because I've done exactly the same mistakes many times that I can spot them now! DuncanHill (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Royal Society for Asian Affairs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Curzon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Date format in Julia Stephens

I thought you would be interested to know that someone recently went through Julia Stephen with AWB and changed all the date formats. You just put them all back the way I had them. Let's see what happens next!

And sure enough, someone changed all the dates back again --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Another help call

Duncan,

The recent page I put up on Elliott R. Corbett, which has been reviewed and the 'unreviewed tag' removed, had one para that they asked me to reference which I have. However the section "Public service and and charitable activities" and the Section "Alta S. Corgett (wife)" and Section "Daughters" there is a tag "This Section may need copy editing". I am not sure why? Can you figure it?

Really sorry to bother you on this but you seem to be a whiz and I am just not clear what the problem is? Can your expert eagle eye spot the problem here?

Apologies for bothering you yet again!

ever, William Macadam (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Duncan,

I think I figured it and I made changes. Sorry to be so stupid! William Macadam (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Two photos have been deleted on Elliott R. Corbett page

Duncan,

Another favour calling on your expertise. A photo on the Elliott R. Corbett page of the First National Bank Building and one of the Pacific Building taken by Michael Marlitt who had emailed permission to Wikipedia Commons have been deleted in red. He gave permission and has not deleted them and is as non-plussed as I. There is no indication in ther article history as to who or why they have been deleted. It is so maddening. Can you possibly figure out what I need to do to get them re-instated. Gosh it is hard enough to do all the research, get photos taken, send full permission and release forms sent for their use, which was acknowledged, and write the stuff without this. Could it be a hack? What do you advise? I really would appreciate your advice.William Macadam (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Safariscreenshot3.JPG

The file File:Safariscreenshot3.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Old orphaned esoteric file.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Rees Mogg Fan Club anyone?

Hi Duncan. I'm surpised by your edit here. I realise a slight connection via Trevor Kavanagh, but I thought tabloids like The Sun were not considered to be WP:RS? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

You were surprised that I corrected an incorrect link? And what the hell has Trevor Kavanagh to do with it? DuncanHill (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. Not at all. Well done. I was just surprised that you allowed a source by The Sun to remain at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm just correcting a load of incorrect links, not subbing every article that I find such links in. DuncanHill (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I see. You won't find it a bit of a waste if someone follows you around removing all the sources wholesale? I already removed one here thinking you had made a mistake. As you can see, Kavanagh is mentioned in the Jacob Rees Mogg article as an editor of The Sun. But there's no real substantive connection. Sorry if you think I'm making some kind of confused deep-seated personal attack on your editing ability. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

(after multiple edit conflicts) - I didn't read the Mogg article, just correct a link. If my edits help you to identify statements that need better sourcing then that's great - after all, that's why correct links in references are so important. They help others to check the references and form a judgment on their reliability. Incorrect links help nobody to do anything. DuncanHill (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. The link worked perfectly well, the work was just wrongly attributed? But yes, I guess that will flag up a whole series of sources that someone will have to go and check. I'm assuming that some refs to The Sun can be permitted, although I'm not sure of their value if there are also better ones available. I must apologies for the multiple edit conflicts. By the time I've corrected all the errors caused by the combination of poor eyesight and a dodgy keyboard, I've often thought of something else. My replies should really come with a health warning saying "please wait a minute before replying." Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The Sun did redirect to Sun (a large yellow object). Most of the incoming links were intended for either The Sun (United Kingdom) or The Sun (Sydney), with a few for others listed at Sun (newspaper). I have redirected The Sun to point to Sun (disambiguation), and am fixing all the links. DuncanHill (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

(after no edit conflicts at all) Sorry to interrupt you in what is obviously a very worthwhile piece of untangling. I really wasn't trying to be hostile just for the sake of it. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Done them all now! Well, except one, which I suspect may be a defunct NZ paper of which Wikipedia knows nothing. I don't understand the link in the section header above. DuncanHill (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations. I was trying to suggest, obviously in an obscure and somewhat ineffective way, that The Sun (not the large yellow object) was in some way a glib mouthpiece for the offensive right-wing dross spouted my Mr Rees-Mogg on a daily basis. Shucks. There, now I'd said it. Sorry. I had thought of using this link instead. But I was trying to avoid using a DAB page like this one (meaning small fried yellow and white object) at all costs. But don't worry, you're forgiven Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I thought perhaps the album was by someone who supports Mogg (I've never heard of the singer). Didn't get the Sunny/Sun pun! DuncanHill (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The third single "Pencil Full of Lead" made No 17 in the UK Singles Chart: enjoy Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC) p.s. I think there may be some irony in the title and/ or the lyrics which is emphasised by the video narrative, if you get what I mean?

You don't get to...

Sorry, but you don't get to arbitrarily revert a mountain of edits simply because you disagree a few of them; That is simply not sound practice. Brough87 (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Please do not fragment the discussion. I have now raised this at WP:ANI. DuncanHill (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Brough87, actually that is the way it works. You make bold edits and then someone reverts them. You stop making the edits and discuss them and try to come to an agreement. ~ GB fan 00:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@GB fan: perhaps you'll explain what's 'bold' about removing unreferenced/unsourced assertions? Brough87 (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• • PLEASE take this to the ANI thread. DO NOT CONTINUE HERE DuncanHill (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Another request

Duncan Hill, can you once again advise me as you have been so enormously helpful in the past in that regard. Someone has just gone through the photo credits on the Henry W. Corbett entry and removed the credits most of which have been there for over four years without the slightest problem. i.e. (Oregon Historical Society) throughout. The same thing has been done on a more recent entry on his grandson Elliott R. Corbett entry, which you helped me transfer from my Sandbox. Both articles were accepted with these credits and rated by Wikipedia sas such withn the exception of a few images that I have added. The credits were either put there at the request of the archive providing them or in some cases when the photographer is a profesional photographer in order to have the copyright waved etc without fee for use in Commons. I gave my assurance that these credits would appear as required.

I do not want to get into an editing war with this individual who seems to want to meddle in everything I do but I am very annoyed and extremely concerned that my material is being edited in this way so as to negate my undertakings to archives or individuals. Wikipedia is surely a wide church but there are a few over zealous individuals, it would appear, that are misusing the spirit of Wikipedia. It is such a nuisance after years of research to have to put up with this. How would you advise I solve this. I have tried to be a be as diplomatic and nice as possible to this individual in the past but I really do not want him mucking about with my exhaustive research and obtaining image releases. His latest is that it is against MOS:CREDITS !!! This seemss out of line and lacking in common sense. How would you recommend I deal with this? To I have to go to Arbitration? Infuriating really. Can you advise the most diplomatic way to deral with this? Apologies for seeking your advice but it has always been considerate, sound and helpful coming from you. William Macadam (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I have to go to work

I have to go to work, could I ask you as a favor to put those two imgs back the way SV likes them. I apologize.... I altered them when restoring citevarAxylus.arisbe (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• i fixed them. I apologize for the intrusion.Axylus.arisbe (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Reopening cases at SPI

Hi. Thank you for taking an interest in reporting sock puppets. This is valuable work. However, please don't change case statuses at WP:SPI. This is something that only administrators and SPI clerks can do. If you want to add to a case that has been closed, you should open a new case. Reopening closed cases makes a mess of them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

How about you just block the obvious sock now that you are aware of them? DuncanHill (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Not obvious. I do not think this is Shingling. For one thing, the place is wrong: Cumbria, not Essex. Shingling has never hid their location in Essex. Also, the IP address is far to stable for Shingling. They usually only lasts for some hours, maximum a few days. --T*U (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Then there's another nationality/country of origin vandal as well as Shingling, doing the same things. I have seen this behaviour before, and seen it at AN or ANI. DuncanHill (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not so sure. The edits of this IP seems mostly fine to me. Even the change (that you reverted) from England to UK in the infobox of Leo Amery (the opposite way of what Shingling usually does) is in my opinion correct. England is not a state, UK is. --T*U (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

They're not alright, and someone has been doing this, and been being blocked for it, for ages. OK so maybe not Shingling (a name which doesn't ring any bells), but someone else who's been around for years. DuncanHill (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:plymouth

Hi guy - I thought you might be the right person to put this perennial to bed. I have done my best. Thanks Mark^Dask 20:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly fulfilling my prediction that it would generate much heat and little light! That said, it wouldn't be appropriate for e to close the debate given my contributions to it. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Why are you reverting?

As the title suggests, you seem to be reverting with justification. Alssa1 (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: It's quite normal for us to include the country in which figures were born in. If the reason for the revert is the link to the United Kingdom, I'm happy to remove it; but if that isn't the primary reason I'd be eager to hear what reason you do have. Alssa1 (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Editing

why i cant edit football wikepedia? Musafirkp (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You would be better off asking at the helpdesk. DuncanHill (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, the person with email on Colin Wilson conference page actually replied. Here is what he wrote to me:

There are four volumes in the Spider World series. You are correct about volume 1.(I wrote him that I already know that 1 is divided into 3 parts: The Desert, The Tower & The Fortress)
Volume 2: The Delta is in two parts: 'The Councils' and 'The Delta'
Volume 3: The Magician is also in two parts: 'The Assassins' and 'The Living Dead'
Volume 4: Shadowland is in two unnamed parts
With regards

I'm writing to you to know what you think now about the confusion about "The Tower" part ?
And I somehow got an ebook with two "Magicians", one confusingly entitled "Magician from Siberia", and yet both are similar in content.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jon, that makes sense - I think Ace books published The Desert, The Tower, and The The Fortress as separate volumes, which would give a total of 6 volumes. The Magician from Siberia is a novelisation of the life of Rasputin, not part of the Spider World series at all. DuncanHill (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Lord Byron

Hello. Why was the space removed between the period and parenthesis on the Lord Byron page? That was all that I changed, by the way. Arsvita734 (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You changed "and" to "andU" and in another place you changed "and" to "nd". DuncanHill (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

No I didn’t. I only added a space after a period before a parenthesis, as per https://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/parens.asp Arsvita734 (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Look at the changes you made. I'm sure it was a slip of a finger or something like that. Easily done on a mobile. DuncanHill (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

DrivingDuncanM

Reported as an obvious sock of RJCola. You could probably also make a case for this one being an attack name aimed at you. Meters (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I get the feeling few admins give a damn. Just look at all the thanks anyone gets for reporting vandals and socks. DuncanHill (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't mistake our lack of hysteria for a lack of "giving a damn". We're supposed to not pay any special attention to these kinds of users per principles such as WP:RBI, WP:DENY, and the fundamental internet rule of "do not feed the trolls". SPI reports are procedurally closed once they're handled, in accordance with these ideals. That's the way we're supposed to do things. You report it at SPI where it's handled discreetly, quietly and without drama, depriving trolls of the attention they're fishing for. Each reported sock or group of socks gets its own report, which is archived as soon as it's responded to. There's no limit to the number of reports you can make, and "closing" reports is not counterproductive to combating sockpuppetry in any regard; as someone already attempted to explain to you, that's the whole point. It appears you're getting too stressed out over this to the degree where you're challenging our standard processes and norms and attacking the administrators who are trying to assist you. It's really not that big of a deal. You might want to consider whether you're playing right into their provocations, and thus encouraging further trolling. Relax. Take a break from editing if you have to. The project's not gonna fall apart over this, and your emotional investment in these trolls is not worth the cost of your sanity. Do you want me to protect your talk page? Do you have a list of articles that could be protected? Literally just tell us what you need and we'll handle it. But there's no need to get worked up about this. Swarm ♠ 16:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Lack of thanks, not lack of hysteria, tells me people don't give a damn. Not responding to user talk page messages, but instead going to ANI to criticise my attempts to deal with a hoaxer and vandal, tells me someone doesn't give a damn. Seeing a report of a vandal with an attack name and doing nothing but saying "not here" tells me someone doesn't give a damn. A simple "sorry, we are dealing with it", or "thanks for the report, but next time, use section x instead of section y, it keeps things easier to keep track of" tells me someone does give a damn, "You seem to be being targetted, I'll keep an eye on things and try to help" tells me someone gives a damn. Telling the person being attacked to take a break is exactly what the troll wants to happen. I'd rather you didn't make insinuations about my sanity thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, no offense intended. I never meant for anything other than to offer my sincere assistance. Swarm ♠ 17:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• I apologize for making you think that your work in reporting socks is unappreciated. Unfortunately, I don't always couch my comments in a warm and fuzzy manner. Most important, I don't want you to stop helping the project in this and other areas. I have archived the SPI. Procedurally, it's a major burden for us to keep a report open because a sockmaster is on an obvious spree. It's also better once a report is closed, even if it hasn't been archived, to open a new report rather than add socks to a closed one. These are just procedural niceties but important ones, particularly for me because I'm fussier than hell. As for reporting new socks, if you report them to my Talk page, I promise I will respond as soon as I can. That will save you the work of reopening the SPI. ANI should be a last resort, but it is nonetheless acceptable if you are not getting a response elsewhere in a reasonable period of time and the disruption is continuing. I hope this helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• @Cyberpower678: Any way you can lend a hand here? There's an extreme socking and harassment spree going on by someone who's trying to add these hoax names to various articles. We need an edit filter to block "Roland Atwood Baines" and "Roland Baines". If you are unable but know someone else you could ping, it would still be immensely appreciated. Swarm ♠ 17:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

  @Swarm: Are we talking about adding those two phrases to articles, or something else? I will fashion up a filter assuming the former.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

  @Cyberpower678: Yep, that's correct! Thanks for your help! Swarm ♠ 18:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll just say that I thought the various admin responses to this were fine. The SPI's didn't linger, and usually the socks had already been dealt with, probably by the first admin who happened to notice. Meters (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Trolls

The two that hit you on the ref desk are now blocked, and with any luck the admins will take action against any other socks of that guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting them. It's all to do with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJCola. DuncanHill (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Opened a new SPI report for the latest round of socks. Add any new ones that crop up. Meters (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I see user:Bbb23 said just to let him or her know. Sorry.Harry Radford was never really the first manager of Nottingham Forest 23:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if he's around at the moment. DuncanHill (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Meters and DuncanHill, thanks for doing what I asked. Meters, I'm a him. --Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to remember. Meters (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion and misunderstanding

Even though you've removed the section with my earlier comments, I'm still saying what I came here to say.

It was not immediately obvious that the Joseph Parry kerfuffle involved a sockpuppet. I knew something didn't feel right—that's why I hit the bad actor with a templated 3RR warning and left a softer, courtesy, you're-the-good-guy-but-I-don't-want-the-other-party-to-cry-"But-they-weren't-warned" message here. And, once I did realize puppetry was in play, I blocked the offender, cleaned up the mess, and then came here to say it looks like sock puppetry and you're in the clear.

I know who the persistent puppeteers are that I tangle with regularly, and I can spot them quickly. I can't do that for every puppeteer that darkens our door. If I was slow on the uptake here, I'm sorry for that. Now that I know what's going on, I'm a little quicker to hit a sock of this user with the mop and send them on their way.

And lest my words be twisted (again) by the puppeteer, I'll say it here: reverting edits by sockpuppets of blocked users is an exception to 3RR.

Thank you for fighting the good fight, and keep up the good work. —C.Fred (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. The IP who removed so much of the Parry article before isn't the sock in this case, the sock is just working through my contributions and undoing them. Sometimes he thanks me for them before undoing them.

If you do see edits of mine that look a bit suss to you then please do just ask me what they're about! DuncanHill (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Something you can try is to mention the SPI case in your revert. That way anyone not familiar with what's going one can immediately see this is a case of a block evader hounding you. Meters (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Have you tried this? It's great for reverting socks rapidly. I just put something like "mass-revert sock" or similar, approve it, and boom, every edit they've made is reverted. Home Lander (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a think about that, thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

An admin just thanked the troll for his contributions

Seeing an administration thank the sock for his contributions does not inspire confidence. DuncanHill (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)