User talk:DuncanHill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please use edit summaries - if you do not then it is likely that your message will be reverted unread. If I messaged you on your talk page then it's easier if you reply there (I will have watchlisted it), rather than splitting the conversation between two pages.

Thanks![edit]

For the drive-by wikilinking of Draft:Arthur_J._Boucot, it's tedious to do on mobile --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:77 (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I'll probably come back to it from time to time is I can turn up anything helpful to add. DuncanHill (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
That would be great. I will add sources as soon as I can, and enough to get it main space ready.--2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:77 (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Aston Cantlow revision.[edit]

Duncan, Thanks for the edit [[1]] on Aston Cantlow but I have reverted them for the following reason. I can see why you'd think that Councilors should change to counsellors ie those acting as advisors rather than say, in modern speak town councilors. However, I've checked a number of sources directly quoting from Matthew Paris and all use the term councilors. This may be because in addition to being advisors to the King they also held Royal office, such as was the case with De Neville. I have therefore on that basis reverted the edit to the original spelling. Best Regards Argrogan (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Argrogan: What are these sources? The ODNB uses "evil counsellors", as in this article about "King John's evil counsellors" and in the articles about both the first and the second William de Cantilupes, who are the most relevant to Aston Cantlow, and in their article about Hugh de Neville. "Councillors" seems both anachronistic and to defy the sense of Wendover's and Paris's objections to them, they were evil because of the counsel they gave to John. And Wendover and Paris of course wrote in Latin, "consiliarios" is the word used, which translates as "counsellors", not "councillors". DuncanHill (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Template:DuncanHill Nicholas Vincent in his book on Peter Roche uses the Councillors translation of counsiliarious iniquissimous [2] and another here on the origins of the House of Commons[3] and by Essex records office here [4]. You may be correct that is anachronistic say "councilors not counsellor", but councilors does seem to be translation accepted and used by academics. Now, I don't know why that's the case but as I suggested above it may be to reflect that they held Royal positions "councilors" and who would as part of their duties advise; whereas a "counsellor" would only offer advice but would not necessarily hold a position of office. Any way its a most interesting moot point and I'd like to find a definitive answer as to why that's the translation used. Best regards Argrogan (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

why labeling anti FederalReserve as neo-Nazis?[edit]

why you labeling Anti-FederalReserve as Neo-Nazis & antiSemitic? you reverting my edit on Rothschild family.45.116.232.43 (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It is clear that many of the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories attacking the Rothschild family are being spread by neo-Nazis. Your edits were unhelpful, to say the least. DuncanHill (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
How come being anti-FederalReserve is labelled as antiSemitic? just tell me this. FederalReserve is private bank controlling USD and much of US economy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.232.48 (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2017
What has this to do with the article about the Rothschild family? DuncanHill (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I've mentioned you at AN/I[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is SiTrew at RfD. For clarity this is a mention in the context of a thread about Si Trew, not a complaint about you. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I got the notification at the top of the page. I had forgot that redirect. DuncanHill (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up, if you'd like[edit]

Hi there. I wanted to re-state my willingness to have a conversation with you about your disagreement regarding my edits of the Rothschild Family page. I appreciate your initiative in involving a third party, and despite their assessment of the situation, do not feel comfortable making any edits to the article without attempting to directly speak with you first. And I apologize for my snippiness, I understand that, if you are on guard for a certain type of ideology, you might take issue with a formerly inactive account (I just finished my exams and haven't touched WP in four years because using WP in university is a "no-no"). What do you think is the best approach, from here? Di4gram (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Misleading summary[edit]

Thanks for the heads up. I had already noticed it and I am about to run a script to fix it retrospectively add another minor edit to add a new comment to the history. It is the second time it has happened, and I don't know how the text is changing, but for the rest of the run I am going to lock the comment, so it can not accidentally happen again. -- PBS (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Oversight[edit]

Hey - don't worry, there's absolutely zero chance of your being blocked over this. I'm quite surprised that it fell between the cracks. That doesn't happen. My experience is that stuff gets dealt with before I get a chance to look at it, and because of that I don't end up doing a lot of oversight. Also, if in doubt, report it. Better to be safe than sorry. I'm afraid that I do agree that there can be a fine line between what can be just revision/deleted and what needs suppression. If you use irc, then that's often faster. Doug Weller talk 21:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The blocking worry was if I responded to an ANI thread which an admin had shut down to make sure he had the final word, apparently being the person with the concern doesn't entitle me to say if the concern has been dealt with. I do appreciate your comments here, but you and your colleagues do need to make sure requests aren't left hanging for hours. I had time to not get to sleep for hours, eventually fall asleep, and oversleep the next morning, make a cup of tea, then check the article, and post on ANI before anything was done. That sort of delay does not encourage reporting - or rather, it discourages people from doing it again after the experience. I did suggest to Thryddulf (?sp) that his advice abut emailing functionaries if there was no response from Oversight should be added to the automated email. There are far too many "beware of the leopard" notices at the places editors look for help on Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I've added the rev/del irc channel to the contact page. I still don't think you could have done anything that would get you blocked unless you went wild with reverting, which I don't think you would have done. I'm not sure about Functionaries but I guess it will be discussed there. The usual situation is that we are more likely to worry about not doing enough OS work to keep the tools because others beat us to it! Doug Weller talk 18:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Clement-Talbot revert[edit]

So was it no help to you? Sorry about that.
Eddaido (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Then would you mind very much telling me why it did not make sense to you? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


Request for deletion[edit]

Hi @DuncanHill:, I work For Artificial Solutions, the creator of Lyra (Virtual Assistant), formerly Indigo (Virtual Assistant). I have started a discussion for request for deletion of our page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyra_(virtual_assistant). Because the creator of the page no longer exists at the company, it has become increasingly difficult to remove this page. We are obligated to remove the name "Indigo" from this page completely. As the new name Lyra does not have any history online, and since this page is considered to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic, I suggest it be deleted. You can find my request here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lyra_(virtual_assistant). Thank you for your time. Justin.mota (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Justin.mota: No legal agreement into which you may have entered applies to Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not exist for the convenience of your company. Also, please stop posting the same, or a substantially similar, message on different editors' talk pages (see WP:CANVASS). You have opened a Request for Deletion, and that is the appropriate venue for any discussion. There is no need to "ping" an editor when posting on their talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Amazon spam[edit]

? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If you have a question, it should go before the question mark. DuncanHill (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

What is Amazon Spam? Keith-264 (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Amazon spam is using amazon.co.uk to cite a book, by simply inserting a url to a amzon page showing the book, rather than filling out the cite book form correctly.[1]
Oh, I thought that it was using ASIN numbers instead of ISBN. I don't like it when people add a giant Goolag url to a book citation. Keith-264 (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Hi User:DuncanHill, as you are active on WikiProject Cornwall I thought you might be able to add to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded#Add Cornwall‎. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)