User talk:Duncanrmi

Welcome!
Hello, Duncanrmi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

please read this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments

I sometimes add things to the talk pages behind articles, where I think the article has room for improvement. sometimes this is about omissions from the article, or factual inaccuracies. I try to back these comments up without breaching any of the WP guidelines about OR & what-have-you; that's precisely why these comments are on the talk page & I don't go steaming in editing the article directly. so don't just go deleting my comments from the talk page without at least responding to them. by all means use the talk page to tell me why a comment or a suggestion won't work. I stick to articles that I know something about- a lot of other wp users like to contribute to articles where they have a specialist knowledge of the subject. some of you who spend a lot of time 'tidying up' articles & talk pages may be missing the point or value of some of these contributions in your attempts to have everything conform strictly to wp guidelines. wp:forum states that the talk page is not a place for discussing the subject of an article, but rather the quality of the article itself. where this is difficult is in the area of discussing an omission or error in the article- users need to be able to discuss this somewhere close to the article in order to get consensus on fixing it. the talk page should be a safe place to do this. lately a number of my comments on talk pages have been deleted, with the editor citing wp:forum or wp:copyvio at me, because in attempting to discuss possible improvements to an article, I have accidentally discussed the content of the article or linked to something related that would in & of itself be copyvio if placed into the article. please, if you've got time to do this sort of thing, at least read my contributions first & maybe challenge me on them. or go after some of the articles that really need your attention. cheers.

duncanrmi (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
When adding links to material on external sites, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 01:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

understand that, but the link was on the talk page & not in the article. the intention was to prompt people to add to the article. how do you propose we get around this? duncanrmi (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

June 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages (including user talk pages) such as 2012 (film) are for discussion related to improving (a) an encyclopedia article in specific ways based on reliable sources or (b) project policies and guidelines. They are not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. My apologies if I misunderstood your intent, but you did reply to a comment that was several years old and was initially made by an editor who hasn't been active since 2018. DonIago (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I know you mean well, but you have deleted my addition without disturbing anything else on the page. you need to give a reason for deleting people's contributions, no matter how trite or non-WP compliant you personally think they are. behaviour like this is one of the things driving real experts (whether they be experts on the topics or just at explaining things) away from WP. I'm afraid I find your tone patronising too- I've been editing WP entries since WP started, though that may not be apparent from my user data here, & I have watched this gradual creep away from facts towards verifiability, & people (like yourself) treating the talk page as though it was part of the article. please leave good reasons here & at the talk page itself why you wantonly deleted my contribution.

duncanrmi (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You replied to a comment that was several years old and made by an editor who hasn't been active since 2018, as I said in my initial post here. In other words, you basically replied to a dead thread. I already apologized if I misunderstood your intent, so I'm sorry if you're determined to be offended, but I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish at the Talk page either. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not "determined to be offended", & I'd like to try to understand what YOU hoped to achieve by simply deleting my addition. if it's a 'dead thread', as you put it, then delete the whole section. you think you dealt with it by editing the article to explain the plot point; I was just adding to this- expanding on it, while the flick was fresh in my mind. either allow me to expand on what you added in the article ('further reading', if you like) or delete the section, job done. I'm already tired of wp's self-appointed lawmen insisting on "verifiability" over first-hand-knowledge, & have seen too many well-written articles destroyed by quotes from badly-written, under-researched textbooks which trump the 'original research' by acknowledged expert contributors, by virtue of an ISBN number. this is not the wp I started paying for over a decade ago. which one of those guidelines did I fall foul of? how, exactly, was my expanding on your explanation, an infraction? duncanrmi (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you feel so strongly, reinsert your text and reply to an inactive editor. This doesn't merit the amount of time and energy that either of us have spent on it. DonIago (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad that you appear to concede here that your drive-by housekeeping is just as much a waste of time as my drive-by attempts to further illuminate the minor plot-point of this horrible b-movie. what's the point of a talk page if people can't talk freely when they get there? I didn't mess with the article itself. as for inactive users- our mystery man (clearly) isn't the talk page's only visitor. perhaps next time our paths cross, you could be a little more like henry clay & a little less like a roomba, eh? :-) duncanrmi (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the next time our paths meet, what I'll most likely remember is that you seemed less interested in discussing the salient points of my concerns and more interested in coming close to violating WP:NPA and lamenting how you feel Wikipedia has gone astray? In any event, it's unlikely I'll respond further here. I apologized to you in my first message, and that appeared to make no difference in your response, and you've given the distinct impression that you're not ultimately interested in my concerns in any case. 'Nuff said. DonIago (talk) 05:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

the salient points of your concerns were that a) I was venting about a ridiculous plot device in a duff movie in violation of wp policy for a talk page, & b) that it was pointless so to do because ms go-fast has long since abandoned wp, at least as an editor. I addressed both, & hoped to engage you in some meaningful discussion about why wp has these guidelines for talk pages (& see my para above this section about that). if there's another salient point, it wasn't salient enough for me. your concerns are the same as many other wp editors, namely to uphold the regs as you perceive them. if I'd been making alterations to the article, fair enough. you deleted my text with "WP:FORUM" by way of explanation, & I've seen that before. clearly it's something that can be interpreted in a number of ways. one of the points underneath that "WP:FORUM" is about deleting other people's comments on talk pages. whatever you think the rules are, what you did was condescending & rude, & your posting of a number of wp guideline links was patronising. I understand why you did it, though. but wikipedia doesn't belong to you. duncanrmi (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

April 2022
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages (including user talk pages) such as Tim Westwood are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. They are not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Solipsism 101 (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * thanks, but a) the "welcome to wikipedia" boilerplate response is not appropriate; I've been here a while now. don't talk at me like a bot.
 * b) westwood is in the news here, with a hevily promoted new documentary describing various inappropriate behaviours during the entire of his career. if that's not relevant to his wiki entry, I'd be very surprised. I put it on the talk page so that someone else could decide how to deal with it. was it the tone of my sub-heading title you found troublesome? not clear from your bot-like message.
 * duncanrmi (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Firstly, for the forum point, the heading "Westwood sex-pest" (your opinion) with the comment, "I've never liked him, btw, by way of a response to the observation above that there's no evidence for anyone hating him." (diff.) Your dislike and your opinion of him being a sex pest are not helpful to anyone trying to use the talk page to inform the writing of the article, and is against policy. I don't see anyone talking about haters in the page history either. Secondly, the info was already added at the time you posted your comment at 14:27, where you called for it to "find its way in" to the article. It was added at 12:09 by Serious About Comedy (diff) and had not been removed at any point after, so the comment served no purpose and was designed only for you to express your opinion on the matter. I was going to ignore it, but Doniago previously reminded you above of WP:NOTAFORUM for 2012 (film), for this diff where you explained the flaws in the movie. I hope that clarifies the position. Best wishes, Solipsism 101 (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for clarifying your remarks like a person this time.
 * please read my 'read this' above; you may disagree, of course. you probably will. there are plenty of other more opinionated people dropping things into talk pages, far worse than I.
 * if that's TLDR for you, "wp:forum states that the talk page is not a place for discussing the subject of an article, but rather the quality of the article itself."
 * lecture me all you want about wikipedia's protocols, but my tone is my own.
 * "I can't find any evidence to suggest that Westwood is 'hated' by anyone" is the remark on the talk page I was responding to.
 * as for the info already having been added an hour or two earlier- well, you can see yourself that the page was subject to a lot of editing at around that time. my comments were against an earlier version of the page, clearly, or why would I have bothered? I'm not even sure now. the page was out-of-date when I saw it, & so I left a comment to that affect; I'm sorry if the tone offended you or anyone else, but the allegations against TW are serious & well-founded.
 * increasingly I find the description of the page behind the article as "talk" to be at odds with what one is actually allowed to put there, & subject to more of these rules than the pages themselves. read the rest of the talk page, like I did.
 * duncanrmi (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Nick Cave
Hi Duncanrmi. You may have forgotten, but a year ago you asked for somebody to add a section on the Nick Cave version of The Carnival is Over. I have done this, but as I say on the Talk page, you might wish to add something - it looks a bit thin at the mo'. (I have also expanded the Music section).

You will also see that I agree with you that the Boney M sections are disproportionate - and also repetitive. I would support a severe prune! Do you want to do this, or shall I? The stuff on Going Back West is totally irrelevant, and should just go. . . Brymor (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't have a great deal of info to add, unfortunately, but let me see what I can unearth.
 * as for boney m- I'm inclined to leave that for someone with more patience!
 * duncanrmi (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point about the patience! I'm not sure I have enough, but I might possibly get round to it . . . Brymor (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Images of Alastair Hugh Graham
I noted you said you had info. on Alastair Hugh Graham.

Do you have an 'authenticated image' of this man - perhaps in his Oxford years.

The one posted has been challenged, and I tend to agree - the claimed image is dubious -

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alastair_Hugh_Graham,_young.jpg

BeingObjective (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I am acquainted with the author duncan fallowell, whose book I mentioned in that note on the talk page. however, I have not heard from him for a while, nor seen posts from him recently on social media, & fear that his health may be the reason. I will try to reach out to him. perhaps he can help find a better picture.
 * d. duncanrmi (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks - yes, sadly we are all getting older. The image there now is in question - I did try to remove it asking for a better more authoritative image - another editor feels it is fine to leave it there. I am not of a mind to worry that much - but portraying a false image in a biography strikes me as rather sad.
 * Regards   BeingObjective (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)