User talk:DuncanHill/Archives/2008/February

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

TreeSmiler

Just wanted to say that I agree with your restoration of TreeSmiler's recent post to the RD talk page after TenOfAllTrades deleted it. As far as I can tell, TreeSmiler is an ordinary, possibly inexperienced, editor. Do you understand why TenOfAllTrades thinks otherwise ? I have asked him, but TenOfAllTrades says he will only discuss it with me by e-mail, and I don't want to get into some secret off-wiki discussion. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel much the same as you - I can see no reason for the deletion of the talk page post, and TreeSmiler does indeed look like an inexperienced editor. I also agree with you about "off-wiki" discussions. DuncanHill (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then let's spell it out. It's Light current. Everyone is pretending it isn't, because he's officially banned. Yet, it is. I won't provide any evidence, though, because I'm not making any accusations or asking for anything to be done about it. Just stating the facts. Interpret it as you like. And absolutely no objections, Duncan or Gandalf, if you wish to remove this post. On the contrary, I'd support it being removed. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, you are making accusations, even tho' you say you aren't. And to make accusations, then say you won't provide any evidence, and then claim you aren't making accusations is pretty low behaviour in my book. I won't remove the post, I get pretty fed up with other editors who blank "inconvenient" portions of their talk page (as anyone who's paid attention to my prevous posts at AN and ANI would surely know), and I feel I should try to uphold my own standards. DuncanHill (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, let it stand. It's only inconvenient to Light current. Whatever. No worries here. Not interested. Take care. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, Duncan. Looks like the cat's out of the bag on-wiki. TreeSmiler continues to be on a short-leash probation, and any admin may ban him at any time. Given the amount of other editors' time he's wasted over the last year or so, you'll forgive me if I don't really have any further comments for you on this topic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Very, very poor. You email me, despite my expressed reservations above (and elsewhere) about "off-wiki" discussions, including the frankly disturbing sentence "If you decide to take this on-wiki - which I strongly, strongly discourage you from doing - the ensuing mess is on your head." then refuse to explain yourself. Very disappointing. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
In past, Light current has behaved extremely poorly when his socks have been outed, as I made clear in my email. That's the 'ensuing mess'. I can't stop you from choosing to assume that every remark I make is in bad faith or opting to interpret all my remarks in the worst possible light—but I wish you wouldn't. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't assume that every remark you make is in bad faith, but I do strongly object to an admin - or anyone else for that matter - emailing me in that tone, the phrase I quoted is entirely inappropriate as it is almost inevitable that it be interpreted as a threat. I clearly state at the top of this page my feelings about off-wiki discussion, I stated this also in this very thread, and I am sure you will have seen me express similar sentiments at AN or ANI before. For the record - I think that admins who make up special policies for particular individuals "off-wiki" and then try to prevent that being discussed "on-wiki" are undermining and disrupting the Wikipedia. I am hugely disappointed by your actions in this matter, I really had thought you were better than that. DuncanHill (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You decided without attempting to contact me that TreeSmiler was an inexperienced editor whom I attacked for no reason. (Or worse, whom I attacked in order to 'win' some petty argument on WT:RD. I sincerely hope that you only thought I was irrational, though, and not out and out unethical.) How much sweetness and light were you expecting from me?
If I weren't making up 'special policies for particular individuals' I would have just blocked Light current under the terms of his well-deserved ban and been done with it. I asked for a private discussion not to hide any misconduct on my part, but to try to minimize drama. Since you chose to quote from my email out of context, here's the rest of the paragraph:
This time, we've decided that unless he forces us to, we're going to ignore him as much as possible. If someone decides to 'out' him on-wiki, it is likely that an administrator will enforce the ban, and we're back to square one with fresh harrassment, vandalism, and abuse. *That's* why I'm so reluctant to discuss this in detail on-wiki. If you decide to take this on-wiki - which I strongly, strongly discourage you from doing - the ensuing mess is on your head.
I wasn't threatening you—I was appealing to your good nature to use caution in spilling these particular beans. I was concerned – and remain deeply so – that outing this particular Light current sock would cause a great deal of trouble and bring no benefit to Wikipedia. I'm done here. I don't need any more holier-than-thou slurs on my character. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't fret yourself, I won't bother the refdesks again. DuncanHill (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • redacted by request

Dont leave

You seem a sensible fellow. Please dont leave the RDs or WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TreeSmiler (talk • contribs) 01:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Francis Drake

Hey. You reverted my changed to the Francis Drake article when I was making some British spellings consistent with the other American spellings. I was doing this on the advice of this Peer Review to make spellings consistent. Since I have an American spell checker I changed the spellings to fit mine. If you would like to go through with a British spell checker, please do so. Deflagro C/T 02:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's okay. So than I should probably revert me changing realize to realise? Deflagro C/T 02:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It helps me make the article better. I don't know where that figure came from. I have had trouble finding references on the section. Is that asking to clarify how much money it is in todays society or what? Deflagro C/T 22:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh okay. I just saw the note on the Talk page. Deflagro C/T 22:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

RD

Hi Duncan, I’m very sorry to hear that you’ve left the RD. :( I’ll certainly miss your answers there, and in future disputes I will undoubtedly regret having lost your voice of reason on the talk page. See you in main space anyway! --S.dedalus (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, Joyce is certainly an exercise in concentration! In fact I’ve just begun to sink my teeth into Earthly Powers recently (after rereading A Clockwork Orange for some perspective). Of course it all has layers meaning, but I also love how Burgess isn’t afraid to use words as words. I wonder if it comes from his early aspiration to be a composer? Beautiful anyway. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Publishing private correspondence

Regarding the note at the top of this page, and acting on that a few sections above, you should probably be aware of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Private correspondence and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Removal of private correspondence. In short you don't have that right to retain. Its not clear whether the author of that email expressed permission for you to publish his email. It might be a good idea, therefore, to seek it or consider removing it, and adjust your disclaimer accordingly. Rockpocket 02:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

TOAT sent the email well after I posted that message. He also posted it in response to a thread in which I had already stated that I do not appreciate off-wiki discussion (and that in response to an editor who had already told TOAT that he did not want an email). It seems to me that he emailed me simply because another editor had said that he didn't want an email, and that he wanted me to persuade that editor to accept TOAT's on-wiki statements. I took objection to what I perceived to be a threat in that email, and said so, quoting one portion of the email. TOAT said that I had quoted him out of context, and provided a longer quotation to support this. I posted the full email to provide full context to anyone who was interested. TOAT has not requested its removal. If he does, I shall consider doing so. I shall also read the articles you have linked, and of which I was until now unaware, and shall of course take them into consideration also. DuncanHill (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I have now read those links and would observe, in relation to the first, that TOAT emailed me after I had posted the message concerning emails, and my comment in the TreeSmiler thread about off-wiki discussion, and I feel entitled to assume that he had read them. Had he wished his email to remain unpublished he could have said so explicitely, or asked me first on my talk page. He did neither. If he does ask for it to be removed, I shall comply with his wish. In relation to the second link you provided, if an uninvolved admin removes it, so be it. My intentions on Wikipedia are to finish some work relating to Cornwall, and then retire (see my "To do" list on my userpage). While there are many interesting articles on the Wikipedia, and many interesting editors, I am getting rather sick and tired of the profound silliness of some sections of the community, and the endless, and to me increasingly meaningless debates. I have trimmed my watchlist to prevent me being "drawn in" to too many debates, and if it really upsets people that i choose to quote them exactly, then it really becomes very hard for me to engage in debate with them. DuncanHill (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to make you aware that the publishing of private emails is a bit of a hot subject at the moment among the policy wonks and its generally seen as a bad thing. If you published someone's private correspondence and they decided to make an issue out of it you could find yourself in hot water irrespective of your disclaimer. Apparently quoting bits of it is permitted, but not wholesale reproduction. God knows where the boundaries lie though. I don't think ToaT would turn this into an issue for the sake of it, but I know plenty of other editors who might, so if you really don't want to have email communications you may be better off turning off that preference. Rockpocket 03:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Despite my slightly testy tone (I'm just frustrated that the disruption is going to start up again) I am sorry you have decided to leave the desks. I think everyone can get a little worn down by the talk page nonsense, so please take some time away and if you feel the pull is too strong, do come back. I sometimes also just take a talk-page hiatus for a few days and feel much better for it. Rockpocket 03:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
As I say, if TOAT requests its removal, I will remove it, and if an uninvolved admin removes it I won't replace it. It's not just the desks that I intend leaving, it's the whole shooting match, but I do intend finishing those jobs that I have started. You can put this recent malarky down as the straw that broke the camel's back. Wikipedia is supposed to be a community, with decisions made by the community, but I see precious little evidence of that. I also strongly believe that there has been an increase in biting, politicking and general snideyness (no names, no packdrill) on the refdesks (which used to be a haven of sanity), and I find myself becoming infected by it. Wikipedia just doesn't seem a very welcoming or supportive environment anymore. It struck me the other day that Wikipedia is like a car firing on three cylinders - it works, but nowhere nearly as well as it should, and I don't see any really competent mechanics around to fix it.
Thanks for your last comments above, they are appreciated by this petulant drama queen, even if I'm not always very good at expressing it. DuncanHill (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You may wish to look at the caveat I have placed on my user and talkpages; by contacting me off-wiki the party expressly gives me permission to republish their correspondence in the manner of my choosing... it hopefully puts an end to the silliness of someone saying something to me off-wiki and then using the excuse of privacy to disallow them taking the consequences of it. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I have quite shamelessly nicked it! DuncanHill (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
On calm reflection, do you think it's a good idea to post on your talk page a detailed explanation of why the Ref Desks are a good place for banned editors to troll, or how we face technical challenges in dealing with them?
Incidentally, don't think that the newness ([1]) of your personal 'I reserve the right to post your email' policy hasn't been noticed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
3 hours before you chose to ignore it and my comments in the relevant thread. Do you want it removed? Just say so and I shall. DuncanHill (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I drafted a couple of lengthy comments, but they all boil down to this: I just don't get it. (Please resist the urge to base a snide response around that quote.) What is the specific, tangible benefit to Wikipedia (or even to DuncanHill) that accrues from you posting that email? What is the positive outcome that outweighs, in your mind, the Arbitration decisions you've been pointed to, longstanding community custom, and plain vanilla courtesy? If you can't come up with a good, logical, objective answer to those questions, then I would ask you to take down the email, even though the harm has already been done. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Plain courtesy would have stopped you sending it in the first place. You honoured Gandalf's wishes not to be emailed on this matter, you chose to ignore my header and my comment in the thread that Gandalf started - and I very strongly suspect you would not have emailed me if Gandalf hadn't already posted on my talk page - and then you emailed me (without asking me as you did ask Gandalf) to try to get me to do what you wouldn't or couldn't do - i.e. persuade Gandalf to accept your position. As for why I posted it - I perceived it to contain a threat from you to me, you denied this and quoted from it more extensively than I had done, so I posted the whole thing so that anyone interested could see the whole context. I'll remove it anyway - I really don't care any longer about you or it or TreeSmiler or very much else that goes on here anymore. I would like to concentrate on my remaining projects, and I think that if you and I can try to avoid each other as much as possible that would be best for both of us. I have removed all parts of the RefDesks and their talk page from my watchlist, as well as the Admins' Noticeboard, Village Pump Policy, etc, so it is unlikely that I shall be tempted back into any kind of debate involving you. DuncanHill (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You, me and Clio

Hi, DH.

This concerns you.

Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have apologized to you on your talk page and will again here - I was wrong to post like that on your talk page, and am sorry for causing any and all trouble or upset to you. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Chough

thanks, I'm dead chuffed (groan) Jimfbleak (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Image

Lol. I knew I forgot something. I've been adding pictures to all the black metal bands lately. Thanks for the help. Undeath (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thank you DuncanHill for welcoming me as a new editor. As you may surmise from my nom-de-plume I am originally from Plymouth and was educated in chemistry at U. Exeter. I have recently edited the page on Dartmoor tin-mining, having arrived there from the articles on Plymouth, Devonshire, Bronze Age, and am already appreciating the value of the interconnection of pages in Wikipedia. Now I am confused about the addition of references. I inserted three sentences to the lead-in to the page and provided two citations to give credence to the comments as to how long tin mining is believed to have taken place on Dartmoor. The first was an external link to a website and showed up as [2] on the edited page, despite there already being a ref [1] much later on in the orginal. My second reference was to a published journal and this appeared as ref [1]. Moreover this reference is given in detail at the end of the opening section and not at the end of the article as I expected. Would you kindly advise me how to deal with this situation in the future? Thank you Devonshire chemist (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied on your talkpage. Hope my explanation makes sense! DuncanHill (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the clarification regarding references. Cheers, Devonshire chemist (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed ArbCom case

An ArbCom request you might be interested in reading [2]. Cla68 (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have commented there. DuncanHill (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC

This episode was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. I've started drafting an RfC here. There's a lot of evidence to sift through and present, so I think it will take awhile to get it put together. If you'd like to participate, please feel free to do so. Cla68 (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will mull it over. I am currently reducing my involvement with Wikipedia (with the aim of retiring from significant edits), so may take a while to respond. DuncanHill (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand if you don't wish to be a signatory. But, if you could add any evidence that you're aware of, that would be very helpful. Cla68 (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Spam

The link was completely unrelated, some photosharing site that I suspect he's involved with. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked, thanks for letting me know. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture Penzance

Thanks for your actions and guidance with the problems I caused on Wikipedia. I haven't been able to post until now as the ban wasn't lifted.

I was wondering was I right to start Picture Penzance and where should I go with this site? It's a bit like Pandora's Box. I was frustrated at the inaccuracies of the visitors to Penzance who post pictures saying "what a lovely place this was Penzance" and the picture was of St Ives. I was also frustrated that I wasn't able to access my town in an everyday sort of way. What I mean by this is that the libraries and so on have only pictures from a photographers point of view.... I wanted to see what the everyday person saw about Penzance, warts and all! One things for sure, the site has really pulled people together, and if that's all it does, then I'll die a happy man. Regards, Steff Halfhidden (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to add that I own the domain Humphry Davy or at least the .co.uk version. I owned the .com but fell into unemployment and had to let it go. My point is I don't wont this domain ending up belonging to some pub or such like.... I haven't used the dome in for a while but feel that it has important heritage to the town. Any ideas what I should do with the domain? I would love to see the domain used to promote Humphry Davy. Halfhidden (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguate links

How do I fix redirects like your monobook is programmed to do? I would like to remove WP:TWINKLE from mine (since it doesn't work) and replace it with a feature similar to yours. In other words, could you update my monobook so that Ctrl+F5 could actually work? Thought JavaScript was the problem but apparently not. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

rouge admins cat

isn't it common sense that since admins are a subset of editors, rouge admins are a subset of rouge editors? —Random832 17:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Saltash Tunnel

Just dropping a note to say that I have finally gotten round to expanding the Saltash tunnel article that you requested at WP:CEng back in december. It is now much longer and contains relevent info on the contractor, consultant and the recent renovations. I hope this is to your liking and would appreciate you checking it over for me, particularly the first half which is quite fragmented. If there are any other articles of a similar type you want me to look at please feel free to contact me at my talk page or at WP:CEng, cheers - Dumelow (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the photos they really improve the article. I had never heard of Geograph before now but it looks to be a really useful source and I will certainly use it in the future, once I get around to registering on commons of course! Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User Category for Discussion

A category created by you or to which you have significantly contributed is being considered for deletion, rename, move or merge in accordance with Wikipedia's Categories for Discussion policies. This does not mean that any of the userpages in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the User categories for discussion page.
VegaDark (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Duncan

Thanks for dabbing Falmouth in ICS. Vernon White . . . Talk 00:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

For your Poldice image

The Minor Barnstar
For the fine photo of Poldice. It may be a small thing, but it made my day. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Haha, well in any case, thanks for taking the trouble to add it :) 22:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bretonbanquet (talk • contribs)

Unblock

Unblock please - I was told to cool off by the blocking admin and this is explicitely not allowed as a blocking reason. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And the blocking admin didn't have the courtesy to put a block notice here either. DuncanHill (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|block was for "cooling off" - which is not allowed, also no warning which is just uncivil}}. DuncanHill (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Merovingian - you could have tried talking to me, or you could at least have had the decency to put a block notice here, or you could have come up with a legitimate reason other than "please cool off" - cooling off is not allowed as a reason for a block. As it is, you have prevented me going to the talk page of the article to explain why the categorization should include "Cornish painters". I couldn't go to the IP talk page as they are on AOL and their address changes frequently. DuncanHill (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It was a short block as a matter of process. I understand you may have been stressed with the IP user, but I think your edit summary crossed the line. I'm sorry that I forgot to give you a block notice here. If you want help dealing with this other user, I can help. --Merovingian (T, C) 13:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You might like to try warning people before jumping in with an improper block. You might find that people would then agree and apologize. As it is, the article is now in it's vandalized state, I can't warn or talk to the IP editor because his address changes frequently, and I can't restore a correct version because someone will block me for 3RR. I don't know what "a short block as a matter of process" means either. DuncanHill (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You can't be blamed for violating the 3RR when you're dealing with vandalism or disruptive editing. And by that statement, it's not easy to explain, but I felt that it was right. I didn't want anybody on the other end to think that you could say something like that without at least a slap on the wrist. It's petty, I know, and I don't want to seem like I'm trying to play cop but I hate how admins and/or users of good repute, such as yourself, get a bad rap for seeminly being too high-and-mighty towards sometimes-undeserving newcomers. From what I can tell, this unregistered user is not acting his or her best, either. I am keeping an eye on the Lamorna Birch article. --Merovingian (T, C) 14:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert at Lamorna Birch, and for keeping an eye on it. I used to go out of my way to welcome newcomers, and to speak out against bitey comments aimed at them, but it's no secret that I am rather disillusioned about a lot of things on Wikipedia (incivility being one of them!) at the moment and unfortunately I allowed those feelings to interfere in how I responded to that sequence of edits. DuncanHill (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the understanding. I share your frustration in dealing with problem users. --Merovingian (T, C) 14:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Explicit consent

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMalamockq&diff=193744409&oldid=193714655

What does that mean to you? Malamockq (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It means "good luck" NOT "edit my userpage to add me to a category". DuncanHill (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"Good luck" in this context would mean he wants me to succeed in this affair. So he should add himself to the category because that is his desire. If that is not the case, he was mocking me, which is a violation of civility policy. Malamockq (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Look. I am not involved in your disagreement with LessHeard - but in my experience of him he is a very patient and reasonable admin. If he wanted to be in the category, he would add it himself - it really is a bad idea to add editors to categories without a very clear request from them, and it's also not a good idea to edit userpages in any way without explicis consent. DuncanHill (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
If you are not involved in this disagreement, then it is best for you not to make comments such as, "It means "good luck" NOT "edit my userpage to add me to a category"". Saying such things would indicate that you are involved in this disagreement. Malamockq (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand that - you asked me what it meant to me - and I answered. If you didn't want me to answer, you shouldn't have asked. DuncanHill (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I did ask a question to which you answered. However if you are not involved in the disagreement, then it would have been prudent for you to give that as your initial response instead of giving your response, then backing off and saying you aren't involved in this disagreement. Malamockq (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh sod it, I saw a userpage improperly edited and reverted it. You came and asked me what I thought something meant, and I answered. Before that I had never heard of you, and I still neither know nor care why you and LessHeard are in dispute - tho' it obviously precedes your improper editing of his userpage. DuncanHill (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What does "Oh sod it" mean? Malamockq (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It is a colloquial British English expression conveying, in this usage, that the user really can't be bothered anymore. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
So in other words, you are speaking rudely to me, or being incivil? Malamockq (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
In other words - I don't really care. Look, there are dozens of amazingly crap admins on Wikipedia - but LessHeard is one of the really good ones, and is the sort of person to be prepared to learn and to shew some "give and take" in dealing with others. I believe he has offered an apology - my advice is accept it, and move on. If you do want to pick a fight with an admin, at least choose one of the ones who really shouldn't be here, not someone who makes this a better place. DuncanHill (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (To DuncanHill) Thanks for reverting my userpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    No problems mate! DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Your work

Hi Duncan, I was wondering if you would consider allowing me to reference some of your work on our site in the future. We are looking (in the summer) to expand to the Penwith area and cover a great deal that you have already written about here. Credits would be issued and hyper links could be directed to your talk page and so on... Please consider this. We need good people like you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfhidden (talk • contribs) 20:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well all my work (and anyone else's) on Wikipedia is freely available to anyone to reuse under the licensing system Wikipedia. It is very flattering to be asked though, adn of course I would be delighted if my contributions here could help you. DuncanHill (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Duncan, I still think its proper to ask. I'll be in touch closer to the date. Halfhidden (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: fixing redirects

Please join the discussion here. It's just one miniscule problem I'm having dealing with (though it appears someone else needs help too). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who have read the BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX

The cause is not lost, brother! In case you're interested, User:Lucasbfr/freaking purple userbox ;) -- lucasbfr talk 15:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

About WP:OWN

Point taken. I'm just trying to let the petulant editor know somebody's gotta do something if he wants to see the article survive. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was a bad renomination for speedy which was acted upon with next to no opportunity for action on it, I'm not surprized if he feels somewhat petulant. Editors are human beings after all. DuncanHill (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, point taken; we're all works-in-progress. The editor's uncivil language put me off. I've tried to be welcomingly courteous to him/her in my own posts. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, cool - and thanks for understanding. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thread on WP:AN

There is a thread on WP:AN whioch concerns your actions, it is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Improper_archiving_of_a_user_category_for_discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 15:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned the matter is now dealt with satisfactorily. DuncanHill (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
First, thank you for notifying me. I appreciate it.
Second, My apologies for not being around when the discussion was taking place.
Third, I'm glad that the discussion was resolved to your satisfaction.
I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 18:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)