User talk:DuncanHill/Archives/2009/August

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

Problem here : perhaps you can advise

Zoltan Kodaly was listed as needing attention so I had a go at improvements a while ago including the Hungarian words in the eLinks. This has resulted in Undo by an Admin who did not explain why he was doing it. Maybe it is some kind of problem with the coding of special characters in the first editing (???) and I can't remember much in detail about which changed and which did not. Obviously I can lodge some kind of complaint if necessary.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have had a worthwhile response from a senior administrator and will no doubt come back after a week and go back to the familiar bits. The recent change to Dumnonia / Dumnonii looked much better than the overlap which had been agreed upon. Describing something which developed over centuries when there were few written records is very hard to do. Even worse is the prospect of writing about the #Cornish people# clearly without stirring up lots of controversy.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I have now seen what happened to Kodaly's eLinks and the article as a whole looks better: when I first saw it there were other probelms as well. Even good articles can get better if studied from different viewpoints and modified a bit: perhaps then it will get noticed and upgraded some more. In Jan 2009 someone made an entry saying he was a leading 20th century composer and even now it is fairly modest as such articles go. Many of the projects seem to be under-resourced and they cannot work on everything all at once. Considered as a whole Cornwall articles are of a higher standard than much of the what is there for Devon: of course Exmoor, Dartmoor, Exeter, Plymouth and Trobay get impressive coverage but the area and population is greater for Devon. Cornwall tends to have places which are interesting for aspects which general standards do not fit very well. I am trying to do less editing for a while. It is not a good thing just carrying on as if it has to been done because it was not quite perfect. There are lots of things I do not understand about this project: you would think that the members' user pages would have some level of protection from other users in the way that controversial political figures do, perhaps at a higher level than this. I am not sure how important it is to have Sir John Maclean upgraded (obviously including him in Blisland is not theoretical correct but it does something more than make enquirers give up and do a WWW search. This account and the ones in DNB may be the only ones there are. (From here I can only get Oxford DNB Index entries not the full text as many other editors must have.)--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

ref reporting homphobic comments

If you don't wish to use the regular boards, then report them directly to me. It may not be as quick as AIV or ANI, but I will review and take the necessary actions (and give notice/defend them on the noticeboards). Without wishing to sound condenscending, orientation equality means that there are no special allowances for anybody (including ASE); neither admins, gays, nor anyone else should expect or receive dispensation from policy - and neither should any party not be allowed relief from violation of such policies. I will (and do) work from that principle, so please feel free to use my offices when you do not feel you are being equally or neutrally dealt with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a fair amount of experience in overseeing equalities issues in the real world thanks. I do not see a viable or equitable method for Allstarecho to obtain relief. A prohibition on him reporting violations amounts to a special allowance to facilitate the editing of Bluemarine. BTW, "gay" is best used as an adjective not a substantive. I hate off-wiki reporting, though I am grateful for the offer. DuncanHill (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I meant reporting to my talkpage - not off-Wiki(!!!) - for transparency without tears. Re "gays" - I apologise; equating them with "admins" as a substantive mistake. Re ASE; the true meaning of 'The Boy That Cried "Wolf!"' is that the wolf is real and is a danger, so communicating that fact via someone with less of a history of wolf alarming may serve the project better. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Look, every time I edit wikipedia at the moment I wonder if it will be the last for a long time. I can't make any meaningful commitment to monitor editors like Bluemarine, both because I'm not on that much and because I know that reading his crap would make me hate the place even more. I've now got one of the saner arbs accusing me of defending worse behaviour than his which I honestly do not understand at all, Jimbo emailing me with an offer to email further personal attacks to me directly instead of posting them on-wiki (I paraphrase slightly), and a couple of blatant POV pushers merrily re-writing everything they can find on Cornwall. ASE has been subject to more abuse for longer than most editors or admins ever have been (not just from Bluemarine) - and if reporting to admins had any effect he might well have developed into a better editor. There are several areas of Wikipedia which I will not edit because I know, from experience, that I will be attacked in just about the worst ways possible for me, and which I know that I cannot trust admins in general to do anything meaningful about. This is the sort of place where calling someone a child-molester is considered no worsel than telling some anonymous IP to fuck off, and complaining about it gets one labelled as a troublemaker or special pleader. DuncanHill (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Block on editing

Until this morning I was able to edit as Felix Folio Secundus but this suddenly stopped with a brief error message and now Wikipedia pages have a wandering group of four black bars. Following the links about how to appeal against blocks still left me confused about what should be done. If you have any suggestions please let me know.--Unfelix Nonfolio (talk) 06:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks as if you may not visit this project very much from now on: if so it is a sad state of affairs that reliable editors get into trouble. There are I would have thought limits to were politically correct terminology can be applied when writing about the past. There is an article English Royal Mistress which seemed a bit odd when I did some editing on it. Thank you for the offer to help out with DNB content: as I prefer to work pseudonymously it will have to be by a 2nd email account (the technical side is not easy for me but it should be possible). It would be interesting to see how they covered Maclean: whether I could find the photocopy I made from the old DNB I do not know.--Unfelix Nonfolio (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, your Felix Folio Secundus account has not been blocked - it may have been a technical problem so do try again, would hate to lose ou! I'll copy this to your talk pages. DuncanHill (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your vote of confidence: this barrier suddenly appearing could have been for so many different reasons but it seems not to be a problem originating in Wikipedia. What would it be best to do with the extra account as such accounts can be sockpuppets which are against the rules?--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
So long as you declare the account it won't be a problem - I suggest making the userpage of the extra account a redirect to your own userpage, and putting a note on your userpage that Unfelix Nonfolio is an alternate account of yours. Sockpuppets are only against the rules if they are used deceptively, and youhave been open about that account from the start, so no-one could have a problem with it. DuncanHill (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving stuff around

I know, moving the comments around does make it nearly impossible to figure out the context of things, but after [1], my choices were either to make a block that would only further inflame things or move the stuff around with the knowledge that a case is highly unlikely to be accepted and therefore the context of the threads isn't that critical. Sorry again for the confusion. MBisanz talk 21:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it had to be move everyone's threaded comments or no one's, after all, it wasn't only ASE who was replying in other people's sections. As I said, I know it is what you were asked to do. Thanks anyway for the apology. DuncanHill (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Any reason

No reason whatever. I honestly didn't even know I did it, and am not entirely sure how it was done. My sincere thanks for catching it. John Carter (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


Orphaned non-free media (File:Royal Geological Society of Cornwall logo.jpg)

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Royal Geological Society of Cornwall logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Epic proportions!?

These "vandals" nowadays, they can't even parse an insult properly! Eh? Why, back in my day... blah, blah, blah, etc... Oh, and thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A threat against you on ANI

Check this out. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I did see it, and have replied to the issuer at his talk page. Keep up the good work, glad to see that I'm not alone in arguing for a bit of decency and a sense of proportion! DuncanHill (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You're by no means alone, but the odds are overwhelming. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I have to strenuously disagree. Duncan, seriously, have a spot of WP:TEA and stop with the attacks and insinuations. You are falling into the same trap Allstarecho fell in. I understand that you find Bluemarine's views and what he's said reprehensible, but by playing Don Quixote and tilting at the windmill again and again and again (ad nauseum..), you no longer make it about the windmill.. but you.
The view I'm seeing from ASE, etcetera is "Who cares if Bluemarine didn't violate the terms of his topic ban.. I hate him and want him banned anyway". That's not going to do any good. IF/When he actually violates it, just post the dry facts without the appeal to emotion, it's better then the constant barrage that we are currently seeing. All you are doing is dulling everyone's senses with the constant noise. SirFozzie (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Bluemarine blatantly violated his topic ban when he called ASE a pervert. This earned him a too-short block, and one admin even saw fit to reinsert the attack after it had been removed - and then support a move to prevent ASE removing or reporting further attacks. There is a pattern of behaviour from some editors (including some admins) which is very concerning, however I have been told (by an arbitrator) that I am not allowed to compile evidence of it on-wiki. I do feel that the topic ban on Bluemarine is being applied much less strictly than the topic ban on ASE - again this is of concern. My connexion is very slow at the moment, so I may not return to this debate tonight. DuncanHill (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Haven't been paying close attention to the ANI thread today (really endeavoring to get other productive work done). So was slow to see your question. Have replied. If doubts remain you are welcome to follow up. Would prefer user talk. Will supply an example of the referenced harassment via email if you request it. Sincerely, Durova306 20:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Having read the full thread now, registering objection to your addressing me as an "enabler" at an administrative noticeboard. You had given impression until now that name-calling was beneath you; this is very disappointing. Durova306 22:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what you think a mentor should do, but you appear to me to be more concerned with hobbling criticism of Bluemarine than with guiding him towards more productive behaviours. That is what I mean by enabling. As to "the referenced harassment" - I take it this is to do with the SA matter? I washed my hands of him when it became clear that he was deceiving me with his socks at a time I had been trying to defend him. I do not see what it has to do with Bluemarine & ASE. DuncanHill (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Meantime...

As my Great Great Grandmother used to say, that really burns my ass. ASE gets restricted for it and BM can essentially walk around his restriction. Should I report BM? At best he is trying to silence a desenting voice (the anon user), which shouldn't be allowed. What should be done? - NeutralHomerTalk • 11:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If you all need someone to report it, I will be glad to run with it. I have no edit restriction on me and they would be hard pressed to find users to put one on me, so I will be glad to report BM. He is doing an end run around his restriction or just violating it blantantly (not sure which) and being allowed, it should stop. - NeutralHomerTalk • 11:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Done and done :) - NeutralHomerTalk • 11:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
After some of these problems, I am seriously considering leaving Wikipedia. It is in it's own death sprial and I don't want to be taken down with it. - NeutralHomerTalk • 12:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bad faith drama queen

Seicer obviously felt that Neutralhomer was making bad faith assumptions about Bluemarine in filing the report - BM did not violate his restriction; Thatcher's clarification on BM's talk page makes that crystal clear. In other words, that Neutralhomer was creating needless drama by filing that ANI. I also read Seicer's comment as emphasising "friend" to indicate that Neutralhomer's level of involvement may be a little too deep - in other words, uninvolved users are unlikely to agree with Neutralhomer's assessment of the situation. I'm not saying Seicer's choice and use of words was necessarily ideal, but it cannot be characterised as a personal attack either. And on your final gross assumption of bad faith, I was looking at BM's "misbehaviour" (which should read more as poor judgement), but found that the noise created by your posts was detracting from the issue. In the future, I will not tolerate this sort of conduct from you, and you will find yourself restricted if you continue to use this approach. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Please do not post on my talk page again. I certainly shall not be posting on yours. DuncanHill (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I have semi-protected this page for 1 week due to the trolling that has been happening here. I hope this is an acceptable solution for you. Chillum 16:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)