User talk:DuncanHill/Archives/2011/September

Edits to Truro
This diff

Your edit summary was not fair, it made it seem like I had intentionally broke it. Also, some of my edits where good, and all you had to do was leave those good edits in and repair the bad ones of you saw I made a mistake. Thanks. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you bother to check your edits after you make them? I saw it come up on my watchlist, looked at the diff with pop-ups, looked at the article as it stood, saw the broken infobox, clicked on history, clicked on the previous version to verify that it was your edit that had screwed up the infobox, went back to history and undid you. In all that time you hadn't noticed that you had broken the infobox. Might I suggest that you use preview in future? DuncanHill (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, broken was correct in the first place. DuncanHill (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Signpost
Beluga boy ''cup of tea? 20:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC) PS: Please tell me the top notice is a joke!

Djanogly
You seem somewhat paranoid regarding the sensible additions I have made to the Jonathan Djanogly page. You suggested that I was in fact using five other usernames whereas this is not the case. Why is it that you and one other user (Graham Smith) feel you have the right to be the only people to contribute to this particular page? It is rather frustrating when I make sensible contributions and add facts or more reputable sources only for them to be instantly reverted by you. Judging by some other comments on this page it seems to be a habit of yours to troll pages maintaining highly opinionated statements. Stivian (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read this before having any further contact WP: BITE. You must understand that new users will perhaps start by contributing to one article and may not move on to work on others if attacked instantly by people like you. You then revel in suggesting that they are single purpose accounts who should not be trusted or allowed to edit articles. Stivian (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's your dishonesty in using two (or more) accounts to edit the same article that I object to most. That and your repeated refusal to accept invitations to engage in proper discussion of your proposed edits. DuncanHill (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

A mistake was made when using an account that I held a long time ago and setting up a new account. No dishonesty in it, if I wanted to use different accounts to dishonestly edit an article surely I would just get other people to do so! Not do it from my own PC knowing that wikipedia can link the IP addresses. You have been hostile from the outset. I have attempted to engage in discussion about my edits but you repeatedly undo them with no explanation. Stivian (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that's a lie - the Stivian and River19 accounts were created within 24 hours of each other, see log for Stivian and log for River19 - unless there is a third account involved perhaps? You started using the River19 account when Stivian received a warning (from another editor, not me) for disruptive editing. I have repeatedly explained my undoing of your edits, and invited you to propose them, and you reasons for them, on the article talk page. This you have repeatedly failed to do, in the meantime lying about my contributions to the article. You have also repeatedly, despite being warned not to, removed the link to the sockpuppet case revealing the link between two of your accounts. you were previously asked to reveal the links between your accounts, but chose not to. DuncanHill (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not check Wikipedia every day (unlike you obviously) and do not therefore follow every single message and statement etc! You can quite clearly see what my proposed changes are to the article so how do we resolve this? Again you are the only one objecting, Graham has not edited anything I have contributed for a fortnight. Stivian (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose your changes on the article talk page, give your reasons for them, then take part in the discussion which ensues and wait for a consensus to develop. That's how to resolve it. DuncanHill (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Or you could just leave my edits alone for a few days, see if anybody else disagrees with them and if they do I will accept the consensus opinion. If not then they stay! What I do not like is you thinking you have the right to remove other people's contributions because YOU, not wikipedia, decide that they are contentious when you so obviously do not understand properly the changes I have made or indeed know very much at all about the subject of the article outside of what you've read in the tabloids. Stivian (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't read tabloids. As I mentioned before, I didn't write the text you are objecting to. Neither do I fake your signed comments. The cycle, as I believe I've mentioned once or twice before, is Bold, Revert, Discuss, so you, having been reverted, should open a discussion on the talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Djanogly
Just a gentle warning over the 3 revert rule on this article. Keith D (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, he's a sockpuppeteer, lies about his accounts (see above, logs linked), tries to hide links to the sockpuppet case, lies about my contributions, lies in edit summaries, refuses repeated requests to propose and discuss his changes. DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm a sockpuppeteer, I lie about my accounts, try to hide links to the sockpuppet case, lie about my contributions, lie in edit summaries, refuse repeated requests to propose and discuss my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stivian (talk • contribs) 15:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC) documented by   —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   16:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Signposthardtoread.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Signposthardtoread.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)