User talk:DuncanHill/Archives/2009/December

Bad block
Hi, Duncan. I've excavated the diff Thatcher thought blockable from your block log, and I think that was pretty silly of Thatcher: he should have talked with you instead of coming the heavy, and of course should have posted that diff here, on your page, and not merely where people who know from block logs can locate it. But I suppose he knows that. I'd also like to remind Daniel Case that it's not a question of three hours or a month or whatever. A block is a power play and a humiliation. It needs to be justified, no matter how long or short the block. It's improper (though woefully common) to treat users like naughty children, and to dismiss their "crap" and "whining" (how polite!). Compare, here, a well-made point by User:Lar: "An unjustified and one sided block can be extremely demoralizing, especially to someone with a pristine record. If Jimbo Wales ever wants to be shut of me, the first entry in this would probably do the trick. I suspect there are others who feel the same way, one unfair sanction by ArbCom, or even one block, and that would be it." Daniel, please be aware that not everybody is as dismissive of short blocks as you.

Well, anyway. I wish I'd known about this block before it got old, so I could have made a bit of a fuss at the time. Not that I suppose that would have helped, but a bit of a fuss is always fun. :-) Bishonen | talk 01:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC).


 * Thanks Bishonen - it is appreciated. I've just been given some excellent books relating to my beloved Cornish miners which would be ideal sources for improving several Wikipedia articles, but I don't think I'll be bothering. I've been blocked once by accident (admin fixed it and apologized even before I had noticed), once for calling an IP POV warrior a fuckwit (blocking admin specifically called it a cool-down block) and once for using a British English idiom which no-one bothered to ask me to explain or rephrase. The first block was entirely forgivable and forgiven, the second a bit grumpy-making but the admin did, when he had looked into the situation, agree to keep an eye out for further abuse by the IP concerned (better of course if admins spent more time dealing with such vandals and less trying to trip up ordinary editors). The third was just a load of crap by an admin who doesn't agree with me that Arbcom and their minions should display greater competence and integrity in their dealings with the masses. I have just about no confidence in the ability of admins in general (of course there are a few individual exceptions) and none at all in the ability of Arbcom to run a whelk stall (let alone explaing just haow they fucked up on any of the many occasisions which they do. Any explanation yet of the OM fiasco? No of course not, and this year's Arbcom will just pretend it had nothing to do with them if asked). I've been lied to and about, abused by Jimbo, and my family insulted. I'll keep using Wikipedia as a handy first reference, and I'll fix vandalism that I find. I'll help a select few editors who strike me as decent people. I won't anymore report vandalism (because doing that involves interacting with random admins), and I don't see myself writing or expanding any more articles. If Thatcher is deliberately trying to undermine the encyclopædia he's doing it in exactly the right way - but of course, AGF doesn't let us say that, and utter incompetence (the "good-faith" explanation) has been shewn time and again to be perfectly acceptable in admindom and other offices of power under the Jimbo. DuncanHill (talk) 11:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that "cool off" in your log, and did a double take. Honestly... I'd have got a bit worse than grumpy, if that had been me. The cool-down blocks have even made it into WP:BLOCK: "Should not be used", italics in original. But of course I can tell it's not a detail like that that concerns you, it's the whole thing. I'm sorry, but not surprised. One certainly loses interest in donating one's good work to the project, when one's treated like some fucking criminal. :-(  Bishonen | talk 17:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC).

Mining in Cornwall
Thank you for the access to type localities: it a subject where my knowledge is very limited. It is a pity the coverage of the mines of Cornwall is unlikely to grow very much in the near future. I wonder how useful the list of mines in Cornwall which appears in that article really is: only a handful of famous ones out of many hundreds. I have only a single part of Hamilton Jenkin's series, and not even his Cornish Miner. I find it is not always easy to concentrate on what I am most interested in anyway.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Re broken citations. Those were part of a passage I copied from another article. I had something similar with Bede's Ecclesiastical History but it was not long before a "bot" came along and mended it. I never try to do complex refs with refnames or links to a bibliography. Perhaps you could point the way to a guide on this.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice (I think I have been using the cite web, cite book, cite journal buttons). The table of railways is based on "tin, lead and zinc" in British quarrying and mining narrow gauge railways. No sign of copper there but do not know why: copper became a major product of the Cornish and Devonian mines.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

IP categorization
I went back to the first problematic IP you listed as far back as December 1. So far, I've seen only one or two dubious categorization changes, which I've reverted. Otherwise, it seems to have been just adding additional categories, which doesn't strike me as being quite so problematic. I'm going to continue up to the current day on both IPs, but I do think that will probably take a while, partciularly considering that there are a few other things I'm going to try to do today, such as getting information from such books I have only limited access to. But the categorization matter will be addressed. If any of the categories get deleted in the interim, I can recreate them. And I want Gigi to have a gin and tonic ready for me when I'm done, if you can arrange that. John Carter (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - and sorry again for being so bad-tempered. I've had to put up with so much rubbish from assorted admins, oversighters and arbs lately that I find it pretty much impossible to deal with any of you anymore. I certainly no longer have the patience to review great long lists of IP edits which seem to be being done much faster than I could ever edit, and which initially at least got such an underwhelming response at ANI. I'm certain that both of those IPs are logged-out editors. DuncanHill (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Encouraging people not to edit Wikipedia
I noticed on your talk page you have said "Wikipedia is not a good place to be - I strongly advise any new editors passing by this way to stop editing and do something else with their time."

First off, if you truly think that then why are you here? Secondly if your goal is to reduce participation in the project then that is not really compatible with our project goals and is in fact actively disrupting our project. You are welcome to start a blog to discourage people from editing Wikipedia, but you cannot use Wikipedia to campaign against the use of Wikipedia. Please remove such recommendations from your talk page. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's on my userpage not my talk page. And I object profoundly to taking problems with Wikipedia off-wiki, it strikes me as a cowardly and somewhat dishonest and underhand way of operating. My problems are with certain aspects of how Wikipedia works, and I believe that they need to be sorted out on Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, to clarify our policy on userpages: "Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. It is a mistake to think of it as a homepage: Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site."


 * Asking new users to not participate in the project is not compatible with our project. Wikipedia is not the correct venue to encourage people to not use Wikipedia. The first part on your userpage is addressing perceived Wikipedia problems and I can tolerate that no matter how wrong I think you are. Asking new users not to edit here is not addressing problems, it is actively working against the project by driving off new users. Please remove your request that new users stop volunteering here. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not. No-one else has complained about it. DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well policy is clear so I have removed it. Please try to respect our userpage criteria in the future. Also, since it is clear that you have not retired I have unprotected your talk page. Your talk page belongs to the community. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 17:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You unprotected my userpage, not my talk page, please try to get something right. I also didn't claim to be retired, rather semi-retired. I know that "getting things right" is hard for some people, but please do try. You clearly dislike my contributions to Wikipedia, but really do you have to be so blatant about it? DuncanHill (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed your attack on Chillum in accordance with WP:BATTLEGROUND. Please don't add deliberately disruptive content to your userpage or you may find yourself blocked. Thank you. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wasn't an attack, was a description of what he did. DuncanHill (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Duncan, I believe the next step is, you're supposed to say "Thank you Sir may I have another?" I know it doesn't balance the situation above, but I (for one) value the 44,000 contributions you've made here. If it helps, any newbie watching this play out will probably not want to be a part of this community anyway. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Floquenbeam, as ever a voice of sanity. DuncanHill (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The opinions of those who suffer myopia on any given topic are not what I worry about - it is the opinions of those who see farther than the others whose opinions I value. The former make up the inhabitants of the coldest of Dante's circles.  The latter are the source of Paradise.  Collect (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks
I was afraid when I mentioned Caesar's wife that no one would know what it meant. Collect (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)