User talk:DuncanHill/Archives/2010/September

best Turkish delight
You quoted this Limerick and I wonder, do I miss some obvious rhyme in the last verse like in the second and fourth or is the fun just that it's so non-sensical? Knopffabrik (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just nonsensical. DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Silver Buffalo Award
Hmm, good point; other types of pages can be recreated in a manner that's different. I'm going to restore, since the entrie contents of the page were different from before. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See the post on the bottom of my talk page; this is called wheel warring, so you may feel free to take it up at WP:ANI if you find it a big enough deal to spend time with others. Nyttend (talk) 11:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Am discussing it with Fastily on his talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

...on a worm-eaten pole"
My pleasure. A pity the wiki on such a distinguished line infantry regiment is meagre. AshLin (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

lol
Lovely pic and caption! And good to have you back! ---Sluzzelin talk  14:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Couldn't resist it! DuncanHill (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2
Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 7, you may be interested in Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Follow-on question
Since he has my not-very-secret page on the list but it's lined out, does it still need to be there? Can I zap it? And while I'm at it, can I zap the other lined-out items? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be extremely helful if all the struck-through pages were removed from the list (might be able to see what he's on about then), but maybe best ask him. I've been asking him to do that since I first looked at his lists! DuncanHill (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The case has now been closed, so I think that's the end of it. Until someone brings it up again. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He's planning an RfC, and also to PROD all the pages he couldn't get deleted via MfD. DuncanHill (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be fair, provided he advertises it, especially to their creators. Obviously, it's more work, and he probably wanted to do it in one swell foop, but that didn't happen. It's best to judge these things individually anyway, as I'm sure there are some of those things that are blatantly against the rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There may well be individual pages which should go, but as the instructions at MfD say that you should talk to the page creator before nominating pages in userspace for MfD, and also that you must template when actually nominating at MfD, and there's never been a consensus for mass deletion of these before, I think he was a bit out of line with the MfD nomination and refusal to inform. PROD has the advantage for him of removing any central discussion of his misinterpretation of previous discussions, and his apparent inability to understand how human beings get along. Still, it appears some editors feel his blatant disregard for policy and procedure make him an ideal candidate for adminship (and if he gets to be an admin, he won't need to bother with MfD or PROD, he can just speedy and be done with it). DuncanHill (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe that potential issue could be brought up at his RFA? Talk about turning the fox loose in the henhouse. Also, how many redlink admins do we have? Not all that many, to my knowledge. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, he has said that he doesn't want to be an admin, and declined previous offers of nomination. I can think of one redlinked admin, about whom you cannot be blocked for calling him all sorts of names so long as you say he's just utterly incompetent instead of saying he's a vicious, grudge-bearing, bigoted liar. DuncanHill (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Where do I have a red link? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your right answer was, "Who are you calling bigoted?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not the guy in question :) DuncanHill (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * is who I'm talking about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We know. The redlinked admin is some other guy. DuncanHill (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... you may be right about that. I'll check the list of admins. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * is the one I was thinking of, and the only one I saw in a quick spin through the list. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Jeffrey_O._Gustafson hasn't edited in quite a while, but I think he's technically still an admin. I think Duncan should delete his user page and go for RFA ---Sluzzelin talk  00:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Short article
Hi, Dunc. I remember that deletion; there was no text whatsoever, just the chemical compound. It's short but serviceable now. PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Humphry Davy
Why does Davy's Cornish ethnicity (or lack of) require the tautological expansion of England to England, United Kingdom, as opposed to some hypothetical non-Cornish England that isn't obviously part of the United Kingdom? Now unless the Isles of Scilly have suddenly declared some peculiar non-UK form of UDI, this is still simple over-stating and over-linking of the plainly obvious. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * English Nationalists insist on "Cornwall, England", Cornish Nationalists on "Cornwall, United Kingdom", Americans don't understand "Cornwall" on its own and don't know that they can click the Wikilink to find out where it is. "Cornwall, England, United Kingdom" seems to work as a compromise. This has been gone over countless times in relation to both people and places, works most of the time to prevent the edit wars that used to spring up from time to time. You reverted to a "Cornwall, England" version (IP edit immediately before mine). The Cornwall Wikiproject template on the talk page should have links to previous discussions in the drop down edit guidelines. DuncanHill (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, if that's the agreed form of wording for it. The linked discussion (which I assume is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cornwall/Archive_3) is hardly an agreement though, let alone a policy! It also includes the phrase, "standard WP practice of using constituent countries in articles about UK places," which suggests a fair degree of ignorance about those other constituents of the UK that are not countries (In at least one of them, people have been shot for suggesting that it's a country). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, without getting into the whole "what is a country" debate, the "Cornwall, England, United Kingdom" formula works - saving time and avoiding the excessively heated debates which have tended to distract from actual content-creation. It's bloody awful prose, but the battle for good prose was lost years before I started editing, alas. DuncanHill (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping to publicize Pending changes/Straw poll on Interim Usage--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. DuncanHill (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooops
I assumed the content HJ unreverted were the facts, but given Igloo's buggy nature I should be more careful. Sorry about that. Regards, — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм •  Champagne?  •  9:43am  • 23:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)