User talk:DuncanHill/Archives/2009/July

Richard Trant
How can Richard Trant run a Cornish Heritage Trust 2 years after his death? Vicarage (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

they have a new president Vicarage (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I had hoped for an acknowledgement of your mistake. Vicarage (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not been editing for some time, as you will see from my contributions. You were removing text and links with an edit summary along the lines of "this is the wrong Richard Trant" - which was incorrect. DuncanHill (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi DuncanHill, hope everything is OK with you. I notice you've not edited since 15 May. I thought I'd make you aware of this. All the best,  Majorly  talk  10:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I'm fine, just cannot afford regular internet access at the moment. Interesting RfC. DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Triplestop's reversion of so-called spam edits by 193.63.75.2
Thanks for stating your objection to this. The IP concerned is the Royal Society itself and was linking to free scientific information, not some "commerical" service. Who do these people think they are?! Some editors seem to be more equal than others!PointOfPresence (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, on seeing the examples from Triplestop, it looks like the edits were made by someone at Imperial College, but the principle is the same. I'd welcome your input on this.PointOfPresence (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Irrespectable
My friend, I concede that the article was a recreated PROD, not a recreated AfD. It clearly still merits deletion. What do you want of me, because I really have more important thing to do than to discuss by which means a clearly non-encyclopedic article should have been deleted. Do you maintain that the article should not have been deleted? Do you really feel that it merited discussion? Do you want to go to WP:DRV? This is a seriously trivial article, totally non-encyclopedic, and it does not deserve this amount of discussion. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you amend the misleading deletion log? Or can you try to follow policy in the future? If you do it right - that is follow the policies and procedures - you may have to put in a little extra effort at first, but you will be rewarded by far less questioning or criticism of your admin actions. DuncanHill (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * With the deepest respect I am answerable to the community, and answerable in some circumstances to bureaucrats and stewards and Jimbo. I do not feel that I need any additional guidance in my admin function; but thank you for your interest. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As a part of the community, can I ask you to be more careful in the future not to put false statements in the deletion log? It makes it even harder for non-admins to find out what has happened to deleted articles. Algebraist 20:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I have conceded that I was incorrect, in an obviously non-encyclopedic article, in accepting the rationale of the nominating editor. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is misleading to say in the deletion log that it was deleted as being recreated following a discussion, when there was no discussion. Is a recreated prod even eligible for speedy under that criterion? DuncanHill (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, a recreated prod if unchanged is eligible. I have no wish to appear unreasonable, or in any way to give offence, but have you not now flogged this dead horse enough? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not me flogging it - you have chosen to revisit it when I had ceased commenting, and to misleadingly copypaste material from your own talk page to here without making that clear. You appear not to be interested in a meaningful discussion, so please go away. DuncanHill (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comments
Clearly you are fully within your rights to make any comment you wish, about my actions or anything else. But I have no spent more than enough time in what essentially a discussion without any concrete long term objective. Please make any further comment you wish to make about Irrespective on your own talk page, because I really do feel that I have nothing else to say about it. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh sod off. DuncanHill (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * IN fact, sod off and stop resurrecting a debate which was over - looking at the history of your contributions on this page it is clear that you have continued arguing the point long after I stopped editing. Please also desist from copypasting material from your own talk page to here without making it clear that that is what you are doing. It is misleading and confusing. DuncanHill (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Message
I received a warning about an unconstructive edit, which I believe came from my attempt to edit the 'Ric Flair' wiki page. To clarify the article had been edited by someone else (with one edit reporting his death and another listing his name as 'Dick Flair'). I went to the edit section to rectify these changes and when i tried to update the page again it had already been edited by a third party. I wasn't being unconstructive, I simply didn't edit quickly enough. For the record I don't appreciate the allegation. I shan't bother attempting to correct things in future. 81.132.121.169 (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The message on your IP tak page was left nearly 3 years ago, and so was almost certainly nothing to do with you personally, but to another editor whi happens to use the same internet service provider. DuncanHill (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Greetings
I noticed much less activity from you than used to be the case: a lot of things got tidied up that way. I feel like I have been doing too much recently and will I hope do less for a while. It was nice to get the welcome box all those months ago.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all you have done, you really have contributed a great deal to Wikipedia, and I for one am profoundly grateful. I'm not on all that much now for a combination of reasons - partly financial and partly to do with the site itself, but will always be lurking round from time to time. DuncanHill (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)