User talk:DuncanHill/Archives/2010/June

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

Thank you

Thank you for your effort in saying where the "missing" talk had gone, though you might have been misled by pretence that age has rendered me somewhat gaga.--SilasW (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem - glad to have been of help. DuncanHill (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for your help on my inquiry into old medical terms. I am wondering however if you can provide any WP:RS citation for linking "whites" with Leukorrhea. It is not that I doubt you -- far from it -- but rather the inability to cite this terminology is at the heart of my issue/concern about old common knowledge. (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, New Edition 1983, Edinburgh, W & R Chambers Ltd, edited by E. M. Kirkpatrick, page 1489, column 2. DuncanHill (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


Hello again, A notice arrived yesterday authorising Autoreview (see bottom of talk page). I cannot say I understand the value of it yet or whether it would contribute anything to what I am doing in various WikiProjects. Any advice would be welcome.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This has come out wrong "Autoreviewer" I have had for a long time; "Reviewer" is part of this shift that has just happened. It is obviously better to get it than not though I do not do a great deal with BLP problems, controversial areas, etc. I only remember getting involved with copyvio on John Hedgecoe (he only died this month and part of what I deleted gave him a Cornish origin I think (it was there until June 5). The Cornish settlements articles have come on a lot in the last few months. Thank you for your explanation.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

George Oliver

Hello, The help with disambiguating is appreciated. George Oliver was a Roman Catholic historian from Exeter whose life overlaps with another George Oliver (Anglican). This is not the one you want: The author of the Monasticon and other works was 1781-1861: and he is in the Catholic Encyclopedia also.--Felix folio secundus 17:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Quiller-Couch

Hello, As you have made the Rowse article much better I thought "encouraged in his pursuit of an academic career by fellow Cornish man of letters Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch (1863–1944), who lived at Polperro," was worth commenting on. Polperro was the home of Jonathan Couch; but A T Q-C was either at Cambridge or Fowey for a large part of his life. Maybe he lived at Polperro also but I cannot easily prove / disprove. Best wishes.--Felix folio secundus 21:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


As you won't let me post on your talk page, I'll comment here - I'm sure you're watching. You are rude, uncommunicative, block-happy and exactly the sort of admin that makes me despise the lot of you. I'm off on holiday for a couple of weeks, but intend to initiate an RfCU on your behaviour and misuse of tools on my return. I suggest you take the time to improve your behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm watching, and will post just once.
Have a nice holiday. Before you write the RFCU, tho, I really do suggest that you take a long hard look at my repeated attempts to communicate with Boleyn ... and my long discussion with you on my talk page doesn't exactly shout uncommunicative.
Fascinating, though, how much energy you apparently want to put into making life difficult for an admin who tries to stem a flood of abysmal sub-stubs from an editor who doesn't reply to repeated requests to discuss the issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
What I find fascinating is an admin who obviously has the ability to improve stubs putting so much effort into destroying them instead. DuncanHill (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll take the bait. Duncan, you really should take a little time to read WP:Stub. That torrent of unreferenced one-liners were not stubs; they were splat-pasted one-liners created with no research and riddled with elementary inaccuracies. They were not worth the few seconds it took create them, let alone the time you have put into preserving the dross.
And, of course, there would be very little time required to destroy this rubbish if it wasn't for a few misguided editors like yourself who go out of your way to impede its removal. I happen to think that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it's a pity that you continue to show absolutely no concern at all that the encyclopedia is being degraded by the addition of articles by an editor who appears to have made no effort to meet basic quality standards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I do hope you won't start an RFC on BHG whose position on this is well justified. She is a substantial and mega-constructive contributor. Boleyn's stance would be more credible if she were not counting and creating a list of new articles she has created. - Kittybrewster 16:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
And the wagons circle... DuncanHill (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A couple cents from an unrelated third party.. DuncanHill, if one bad (in your view) admin makes you "despise the lot", then you're not looking at the situation through rational eyes. If you can't tell one person apart from another, how can you expect anyone to give any weight at all to your opinion? Friday (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Friday, your behaviour and threats when I wanted to expose your enabling of a banned editor remain fresh in my mind. I didn't say one bad admin makes me despise the lot, but that she is the sort of admin that makes me despise the lot of you. The circling of wagons that inevitably ensues when an admin is criticised shews the herd mentality and irrational loyalties far too common amongst your class. DuncanHill (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
What if you simply stop paying so much attention to who is or is not an admin? Have you tried this? You can't view the entire world as some epic struggle between two teams if you stop lumping people together into groups. Friday (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm almost certainly no more fond of the admin caste (as opposed to individual administrators) than you are Duncan, but even I can see that this will likely end in tears. Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll happily admit that most admins aren't as bad as you. That's not saying much though. I'm sure you are well aware that you are spectacularly poorly qualified to make me reconsider my opinion of any admin becasue of your past behaviour, so just why you chose to jump in here will have to remain a matter for conjecture. I'm going on holiday, I fully expect you to get up to no good in my absence, and for BHG to continue her vendetta. ABF? When only an idiot would assume otherwise, then yes I do. DuncanHill (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Duncan, I'm an actual content editor in the area in question (post-medieval British nobles and politicians). [Yes, I'm technically an admin, but you can see from my logs that I haven't made use of the bit except to delete pages to make way for moves.] If you are trying to make the world a better place for people trying to write substantive content in this area, please stop; this is not helping by enabling a demoralizing geyser of unreferenced and sometimes erroneous stubs. If you feel that the current admin culture is the biggest obstacle to content editors on Wikipedia and that any opportunity to attack it is a good one, um, carry on, and I look forward to commenting on the RFCU. Choess (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)