User talk:DuncanHill/Archives/2008/July

Awfully sorry about that
Sorry about my assumption - I have retracted it on AN/I. regards --Allemandtando (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * oh and those links are fantastic, so as I check them, I am re-adding them. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I saw - if I lived in London I would definitely go to some of the lectures. DuncanHill (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The links aren't bad I agree. Also I never doubted Duncan's good faith. However our newbie did turn up sitting in a duck pond quacking (especially with gresham in his username to declare his interest) and Hu12 shoots hundreds of ducks a day. Why we didn't just unblock and explain the issue I don't know. Having an argument in front of a third party is stilly. Ah well. --BozMo talk 14:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you were doubting my good faith. DuncanHill (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way you can listen to the lectures online so no need to come up from Brighton. But isn't Gresham in Norfolk not London... better check Wikipedia. :) --BozMo talk 14:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I will be listening to some of them for sure - Gresham College is off Holborn in London, it is named after its founder. Gresham is indeed in Norfolk! (oh that's a dablink, Gresham, Norfolk is in Norfolk). DuncanHill (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool, you can even watch some of them. DuncanHill (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah yes. Incidentally now I look for Gresham College I find that their communication officer is called James Franklin. See this as one of many pages this guy comes up. Good-oh, no conflict of interest at all there then. --BozMo talk 19:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Hu12 has already made that clear, obviously all the Wikipedians objecting to Hu12's behaviour and reinserting the links are in the pay of Gresham College. DuncanHill (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

reaction to your most recent userpage edit
I have said it before and I will say it again: You would make an excellent administrator here, if you ever wanted to sully your excellent reputation. Wikipedia needs more people like you. Jeffpw (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you know I was just thinking about adding "I am not an admin and never shall be" to my userpage, when the orange box popped up! I do appreciate your thought - I could never accept an appointment for life though, or at least not one with any power attached to it. DuncanHill (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeffpw

 * I did not post any comments on his talk page that were not in memoriam. I was not the one who warned him, I did not place multiple uncivil messages on his talk page.
 * I was trying to make sure that something fair happened. I'm sorry for screwing up Wikipedia, 'cause I'm such a bad editor, right?  Shapiros10  contact me My work  22:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, you're wrong. I posted a memorial message.  I only posted on ANI.  You're confusing me with someone else.  Shapiros10  contact me My work  23:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, sometimes I just feel like a dunce.  Shapiros10  contact me My work  23:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, on my current showing it should be me who is feeling like a dunce - I entirely misread the diffs, so I shall say sorry again, I really really screwed up there. DuncanHill (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's not it. I mean I'm the one who started the stupid ANI thread, I'm the one who was accused of it.  I really shouldn't be here.  :(  Shapiros10  contact me My work  23:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries
I've missed many a more-important message before... :-) —Giggy 10:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

QQ
Any obvious reason why you don't seem to be an admin yet>--BozMo talk 10:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose the most obvious is that I would never ask for or accept (or propose anyone else for) any appointment for life. There are others, but that's the absolute clincher. DuncanHill (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough although there is Administrators open to recall available and I would regard it more as graduation than an appointment (most qualifications are everygreen) but you are welcome to your view. Pity, let me know if you change your mind. --BozMo talk 10:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I do appreciate the thought. I think Jeffpw is first in the queue to nominate me though! DuncanHill (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This schools thing looks interesting but I don't have a lot of free time. What I do have is a script which goobles up a list of historic article versions and turns it into a cleaned self contained WP with no red links and also some cool software to help with selections and updates. Perhaps these could help hmm--BozMo talk 11:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

go ahead
block me forever block me infinite i hate this place do it now or delete this account come on pussy block me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.0.236 (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2008

Strange people... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.106.245 (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

duncan
hi anything else you can help me with thanks for the help on old town. --TheGreenGorilla (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to have been of help - do feel free to ask if there's anything else you'd like a hand with. DuncanHill (talk) 07:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

re: Thanks
Yes, pretty busy. Getting involved in a Cornwall Granite Heritage project in thr "real world". First job - transcribe 2,500 record cards of quarry sites, compiled by ICS in the 1970s. Simple article] could do with improvement. Can't understand Granite at all! Hope things improve for you. Vernon White '''. . . Talk''' 19:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Admin Noticeboard
Replied to your post.  Lra drama 10:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mainpageskinned1.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mainpageskinned1.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are a bot, so replying may be pointless, but if anyone is interested, the image is a screenshot of Wikipedia being used in an attempt to make Wikipedia work better. I am sorry that it is forbidden to make such an attempt. DuncanHill (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review of "Gabriel Murphy" Article
Hello DuncanHill- thanks alot for your feedback and assistance in this article. I was disappointed that an admin closed the AfD discussion and deleted the article as I did not feel there was a consensus to do so. I have opened a deletion review again- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_11#Improper_Deletion_of_the_.22Gabriel_Murphy.22_Article. If you have time, please chime in on this process. I appreciate any help. LakeBoater (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Um
On this, did you ever hear of a policy known as no personal attacks? --Jenny 21:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Did you? DuncanHill (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to attack you. I'm just asking if you were aware of that policy when you made that comment. --Jenny 21:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I never thought you were attacking me. Yes, I was aware of that policy when I made that comment, which is why I didn't simply link to WP:DNFTT. To me, you have lost all credibility with your behaviour on that case. I do find it hard to understand why anyone takes you seriously anymore in such matters. DuncanHill (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you must be aware that again you're addressing the person and not the action or statement. This is why I ask if you're aware of the policy, and its meaning. --Jenny 21:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, I am aware of the policy and its meaning. Your actions, your statements, lack any credibility - and on Wikipedia you are no more than the sum of your edits. I doubt very much that either of us, or the encyclopædia, will benefit from the continuation of this discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a somewhat creative application of the policy. I hope you don't intend to apply it repeatedly.  --Jenny 22:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reg, DuncanHill has just now suggested you drop the matter and this response (in the first part) appears to violate WP:HARASS - which is part of the WP:NPA policy you were recently quoting. The last part may be perceived as a threat, which I now request you to withdraw or clarify it was not meant as such. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A thank you
Thank you, for a most kind welcome. I feel very honored to be among so very many active and brilliant people. I am just a minor editor at this point, but if I choose to contribute further, I will try my best to uphold the standards of this community. Thanks again.--Paraballo (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's quite alright - and do please feel free to ask if there is anything I can do for you. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Darwin-Wallace Medal
An article that you have been involved in editing, Darwin-Wallace Medal, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Darwin-Wallace Medal. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - Diligent Terrier  (and friends) 21:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
But please don't get too stressed about it. I am not a dog (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When various editors with little apparent history of contributing to articles relating to the sciences turn up to put the boot in, I smell a rat. Anyway, thanks for the message, and for creating the article. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Decision on blocking a user
Since you commented on the noticeboard, I'd be curious to know your thoughts on the indefinite block on User:Boy2boy. It seems a bit much for someone who made a grand total of two problematic but non-malicious edits, but perhaps I'm missing something. (I have no involvement with the case other than leaving a supportive talk page message after the user essentially got bashed—but I am a little disturbed by the outcome thus far.) Rivertorch (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like a horrendous block - thanks for letting me know about it. DuncanHill (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Why
Because an editor who lies -- repeatedly -- in his first six edits is also capable of retaliation, but might not be looking at the contributions history. Not for a minute did I think no one reading that thread wouldn't look at my contributions history, or the other editor's. I'll respond to you further on the thread. Noroton (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There were two problematic edits by that editor, and no meaningful attempt to engage him in dialogue. He was abused by PMDrive for his sexuality and his faith, and one of your posts on AN was disgusting and verging on the libelous. I find it very suspicious in the circumstances that you suggested that PMDrive blank the conversation you had been having. DuncanHill (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your ramping up the heat and moving farther and farther from WP:CIVIL is not going to be helpful in either getting to a good ending here or helpful to your case, but how you present yourself is up to you. It isn't "verging on the libelous" to state concerns based on the user's behavior that I specifically cited. Your statements look suspiciously like a crusade to defend the right of a user to pronounce himself gay on Wikipedia, which is not at issue. Please review WP:BATTLEGROUND. Also, lying isn't "problematic", it's poison on a website dedicated to trying to get closer to the truth about any subject. As for Boy2Boy being abused, well his behavior was abusive in itself: suggesting that a venerated saint may be gay and essentially defacing the Wikipedia article about the saint is abusive and offensive and hurtful, and if you're going to be complaining about Wikipedians being abusive and offensive and hurtful, you might want to acknowledge B2B's abusing and offending and hurting. That would set a good example. -- Noroton (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything offensive or abusive or hurtful in suggesting that a saint (or anyone else) is or was gay. Of course, statements that are unsupported by references should be removed, and editors who insert incorrect information, or use misleading edit summaries, should be warned and when appropriate blocked. I do not believe that an indefinite block with no attempt at communication is appropriate. The "concerns" you cited, and to which I objected, were based on nothing more than your own interpretation of his username, there was and is nothing in his on-wiki behaviour to suggest any immoral or illegal intent by that editor. DuncanHill (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement wasn't simply "unsupported by references" but the reference looks very much like it could be deliberately false (I'm not saying it is false because I don't have the book in front of me). There is a bare possibility that the book mentioned something that could be used in the article, but it is very difficult to believe that when the index and the Google Books search of that volume's pages brings up nothing. I made this serious point and in your posts on that page you ignored it while, in your post above on this page you spin it as "unsupported by references". There is a huge difference between a mistake and deliberately inserting a lie and my concern is the latter, so don't distort it as being the former. If it were the only problem, it wouldn't support a block, but it is accompanied by the initial lie in the first edit summary and the link on line 106 to a list that is obviously off-topic and looked very much like vandalism. If the statement about St. Dominic possibly being gay had a serious reference, it should be included in the article according to WP:WEIGHT (and I favor giving a lot of leeway for very short statements like the one B2B added). But inserting it in this context looked much closer to vandalism or POV pushing or both -- and definitely meant to provoke and offend. When it comes to references to gays hooking up combined with "boy" in the username, it's an additional reason to be concerned. If you're going to be tough-minded about offending Catholics, then don't complain that it's "offensive" to respond to (and object to the misbehavior of) an in-your-face editor, and don't implicitly reference WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF when you're simultaneously not following it. Noroton (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't recall any edits by Boy2Boy about "gays hooking up". Perhaps that is something you have imagined. You have confidently labelled Boy2Boy's edits as "lies", yet you haven't actually fully checked the reference he gave. I did say above that editors who introduce incorrect information should be warned and when appropriate blocked - Boy2Boy was not warned, and no-one made any attempt to ask him to clarify or expand his purported reference. The username says nothing to me along the lines you suggest. DuncanHill (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The link explained exactly what I meant about gays hooking up. The first mainspace edit summary was a lie and the reference looks like one. The external link added in the same edit has nothing to do with even modern day Dominicans. "Mistaken", "inaccurate", "unsupported" doesn't begin to cover it. Noroton (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You appear to be obsessed with "gays hooking up" (not a phrase I would use, not least because the use of "gay" as a substantive is widely seen as offensive and prejudicial). I suggest you spend less time googling for gay sex, and more time editing the encyclopædia. I am also puzzled as to why you think it is worthwhile communicating with me at all, as you appear not to think that communication with Boy2Boy would have had any beneficial effect. DuncanHill (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(Request re:Boy2Boy thread on AN)
Duncan, can you please ratchet the heat back a few notches on your posts in AN, please? It's a delicate enough situation that making inflammatory posts regarding what you consider to be other people's motives is actively unhelpful. SirFozzie (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had it with the thread and I have had it with the lies and nonsense posted by PMDrive and Noroton and Beamathan. This place stinks. DuncanHill (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Your most recent update to your userpage
I disagree (but, as ever, I defend your right to say it). I don't see Wikipedia as being the place for any kind of advocacy, but perhaps sometimes being honest about matters which do not conform to the "majority viewpoint" may be mistaken for such. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would strongly advise anyone who was intending to operate a single-purpose POV pushing account, or to use Wikipedia for advocacy of any sort, to lie through their teeth on their userpage. Publicly and honestly stating one's beliefs and affiliations enables readers and other editors of the encyclopædia to apply their own critical judgement to the edits one makes. I stand by my statement that there is a lack of will amongst admins to act against editors who make homophobic attacks on other editors, an opinion formed not just in response to the recent case, but over a long period of time. DuncanHill (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your dab edit for BA article
Learnt something new today! Cya around. Andrelim1 (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mainpageskinned1.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mainpageskinned1.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:DuncanHill/Lanner and District Silver Band
As you requested. The tone, especially of the lede, needs a lot of work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 15:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, however it is useless without the edit history, as any reposting of it (or any work derived from it) by me would not be compliant with the GFDL. DuncanHill (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been restored at your request; thanks for drawing my attention to the GFDL concerns. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Removal of my comment from a talk page
Oh, I didn't mean to remove your comment. That must've been a glitch or something, because when I left my comment, the talk page hadn't been created yet. --harej 21:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Speak truth to power
DH said: Speak Truth to Power is currently a redirect to an American Friends' organization - but I feel sure that as a phrase it has much more to its history. Any thoughts? DuncanHill (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * REPLY: There's some discussion of this phrase at http://www.faqs.org/qa/qa-6697.html, in a form more familiar to me as "Speaking Truth to Power". I suspect that it does go back to the 17th C, when Fds lobbied successively, Oliver Comwell, Charles II, James II and William III for the release of large numbers of Quakers in prison and a change of the law making it less easy for them to be imprisoned. Quakers have a particular set of meanings associated with the word "Truth". Vernon White  . . . Talk 23:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)