User talk:DuncanHill

James Payne

This article would fail a notability test and the 1796 book has obviously been invented by the original author of the article.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Edward Onslow Ford

Hello, DuncanHill! I noticed that you replaced a hyperlink that I had removed from the article on Edward Onslow Ford. I did this because I assumed that the Royal Academy mentioned in the sentence in question was the previously-mentioned institution in Antwerp, and since it was already mentioned, I took off the link.

The hyperlink you added links to the Royal Academy in London. If this is in fact the correct institution, then adding the link makes sense (although it mught help to clarify this in the text). But if the academy is the one in Antwerp, then this link is wrong.

I know nothing about the subject of the article, so I can't say. But assuming you are familiar with Ford, I'm just suggesting that you confirm (not formally, just in your own mind) that the links are correct as they stand. (Also, if you know more about this, that exact sentence bothered me because there is no obvious connection between the two parts. What is does settling in Blackheath have to do with sending a bust to the academy?? If you can rework this to make it clearer, that would be great.) - Jkgree (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jkgree: "The Royal Academy", unqualified, always means the Royal Academy. The source, the old DNB, would never say "Royal Academy" if it meant somewhere else - for example, it calls the Antwerp one "the Academy". As for the connexion with Blackheath, an artist wanting to establish himself in Britain at the time would have submitted works to the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition. It was the place to show your work - if you could get in. DuncanHill (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for clarifying. I learned just a tiny bit more about the art world. Would the following rewording make sense and be helpful?

Current:

On returning to England in about 1874, Ford settled at Blackheath and sent a bust of his wife to the Royal Academy.

Suggested:

On returning to England in about 1874, Ford settled at Blackheath. In 1875, he sent [or submitted] a bust of his wife to the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition.

Jkgree (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jkgree: Yes that looks good, the source says 1875 for the bust going to the RA. DuncanHill (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Hi im IloveAircrafts, I am letting you know that I reverted your recent edit as I found it non constructive. --IloveAircrafts (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@IloveAircrafts: The form "Earl Louis Mountbatten" is incorrect and never used. DuncanHill (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Thankyou for the warning, It was just because it was only edited 3 words --IloveAircrafts (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: As I understand it, it's vandalism to defend the right except for the right ones for you. Ouch! "The Free Encyclopedia" 81.215.254.215 (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Lloyd George

If you're working on him, DH, I've got some good sources I could let you have, let me know. Hope you're well! ——Serial ^# 15:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

(Clarify—I "patrol" WP:RX, and just saw your message there, too late) ——Serial ^# 15:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I am well, thank you, I hope you are too. Lloyd George is a long-term interest of mine, I have something of a collection of books about him as you can see! I would be very grateful for any further sources that you could share. DuncanHill (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, I've emailed you a few things, let me know they arrive. LibraryThing told me we have 5 books in common  :) rather funny I thought that! ——Serial ^# 16:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Received, thank you. Especially interesting to have the Antony Lentin, I have his earlier Guilt at Versailles". Jenkins, Kinnear, Suttie, and Woodward were all on my "to buy when finances allow" list! DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For intelligent, helpful, and in-depth copyediting of many articles, including several of mine. Your work does not go unnoticed. Thank you! Eddie891 Talk Work 01:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Edward Noel

Hi Duncan Hill, I was wondering why to moved back the page. Edward was not only an Indian Army officer and under the name Edward William Charles Noel he is to be found in numerous webpages and also books. As Edward Noel (Indian Army Officer) he was mainly found on wikipedia. I read a lot about Edward William Charles Noel in books, but didn't see an article about him, as I saw Indian army officer, I at first thought it can't be him. Check the google search engine entries for Edward William Charles Noelhere and for Edward Noel (Indian Army Officer) here. I think others also thought he is not the Noel widely described in books about Kurdistan and then didn't add content to the article. Could we agree that the (Indian Army Officer) is put away? The very vast majority of the Indian Army Officers also don't have this attached per WP:Commomname and Edward William Charles Noel is not used yet while Edward Noel is used by various articles.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: A lot of those links for "Edward William Charles Noel" actually support calling him "Major Noel" or "E M Noel", or some such. It is extraordinarily unusual for an English person to be known by all four names, and extraordinary claims such as yours need extraordinary evidence. Hopkirk, probably the expert on this aspect of history, uses "Edward Noel". Try googling "Edward Noel" Dunsterforce. We can't just call him "Edward Noel", as there are other Edward Noels, so we add a disambiguator. This is standard practice on Wikipedia. He was known as Edward Noel, and what distinguishes him from the other Edward Noels is that he was an Indian Army officer, and it was while he was an Indian Army officer that he achieved notability. I would also note that the article name "Edward Noel (Indian Army officer)" has been stable since November 2016, and nobody has objected to it on the article talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Davies Gilbert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Briton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

Lord Peter Palumbo's page is grossly abbreviated, which calls into questions the motivation for this. It does not mention even one third of his career or appointments. Attempts to do justice to his career have just been curiously frustrated. Setting the record straight is not 'promotional' - it is entirely accurate. The reasoning behind the endeavour to diminish his career and accomplishments therefore appears questionable. All of his appointments can be directly verified with the institutions, which is where the information for his website originated. 2A02:C7D:BBAA:8700:1072:9669:6701:B5C (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The place to discuss changes to the article is Talk:Peter Palumbo, Baron Palumbo. You MUST declare any connexion you may have to the subject of the article. Palumbo's own website is not acceptable as a source for the sort of things you were adding, and frankly much of what you added was trivial. DuncanHill (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Connections (film) is wrong wikipedia heading

Duncan Hill, you changed the C.E.Carrington entry from soldier to historian and asked me to do a more extensive entry, which I did a year or two back. Could you also change the Wikipedia entry from Connections (film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(film) to Connections: An Investigation into Organized Crime in Canada television series (or expose). It was five programs of extensive investigation shown in two series two years apart made for CBC television in Canada. I am in the process of editing the entry and adding substantially to it with references. If you can access my sandbox you will see the work in progress. It is inaccurate to call it Connections (film) as it was never shown as a film. I would really appreciate your assistance on this. Keep well. William Macadam (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@William Macadam: Done - it's now at Connections: An Investigation into Organized Crime in Canada . I remember your work on Charles Carrington well, it's good to know you're still contributing. I hope you are well, DuncanHill (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: Many thanks. I very much appreciate your assistance. Best regards. William Macadam (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I hope this is appropriate

A Google search suggested this was an appropriate way to contact you, but I'm not sure, so please forgive me if I've taken bad internet advice ;)

I just saw your 'talk' comment 'history' on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediawatch-UK I posted an 'I agree' edit, and a little further digging into the history of the article shows this whitewash happened in March 2019 by someone who may no longer be an editor? and the tag at the top of the article suggest he is a member of the organization? I was very tempted to simply undo the edit, but there have been subsequent edits and I'm not experienced enough an editor to make that move, but it appears you have a better idea of what you're doing. The edit not only removed all mention of their failed legal witch hunts, but blatantly changes what they campaign against from campaigning against homosexuality to campaigning against hate speech regarding sexual orientation. Adagio67 (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Emma Thompson

Hi! I wanted to let you know I undid one of your reverts on the Emma Thompson page. The IP editor changed the link so it points to the real page for the film, rather than to a redirect to that page. (It fooled me for a minute, too. Don't ya wish people would sign on to edit? It would make vandalism so much easier to spot.) Cheers! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 16:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I have already posted on your talk page. Please read WP:NOTBROKEN. DuncanHill (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I did (and have) and, like many things in Wikipedia-land, the guidelines are far from absolute. Regardless, your point is valid—thanks for letting me know! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 16:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The text about Palmerston

I think you are wrong about the historical assessment of the statements of the English politician Palmerston. My opinion, of course, is not complimentary to him. Maybe my background is also involved. But still, in the context of the historical assessment of the person's personality, this opinion is quite appropriate. 178.155.64.26 (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)