User talk:DuncanHill

Semi-retired

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some falafel for you

Bon appetit! Polygnotus (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More barn[star]s

Hi, my recent block has now expired, and I would like to give you a token of my warm appreciation for sticking up for me at User talk:Tamzin/Archive/16. I would have joined in the recent unfortunate contretemps on the Ref Desks but was still blocked.

See also Cholsey Great Barn: world's largest barn being digitally rebuilt. You support was hugely appreciated, very best wishes. MinorProphet (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Small

Hi, Duncan, good to see you're still here. Thanks for fixing my silly mistake. All the very best, and have a good Christmas. Regards, Jack (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Shearonink

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mary King (merchant) § Issues with various National Records of Scotland cites. I noticed that you had edited this article or its talk page in the past and thought you might be able to help with the three errant National Records of Scotland cites. Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: Hi, I'm sorry but I don't know how to fix them. DuncanHill (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

extended confirmed edit request

Hello , seen you edited article Thalassery. i have made an edit request on Thalassery artcle. Can you please review it?: [1] Jitheshuv (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jitheshuv:, Sorry it's outside of my area of expertise. DuncanHill (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

World War II casualties

Hi there. We seem to have made simultaneous edits which have mucked thing up. The reference should be to Hastings. Hope you understand what I mean. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aemilius Adolphin:, No I fixed one error (you had used the same refname for Mittler as had been used elsewhere in the article for "Жертвы двух диктатур. Остарбайтеры и военнопленные в Третьем Рейхе и их репатриация", and you then introduced another with Hastings. The problem is using refnames like ":0" or ":5". You should use meaningful refnames, like "Hastings2011p669-670" or such that are unlikely to be duplicated. Numbered refnames are the source of far too many errors in far too many articles, done by far too many editors. The problems are 1) nobody coming new to an article knows how high the count has got, and 2) people copy bits of text from other articles with the same numbered refnames in. So many people make this same mistake. DuncanHill (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Refname rules. DuncanHill (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I realise it was my fault. The problem was that I copied a reference from my sandbox and it changed the reference name when I pasted it into the article. I don't know why it does this but there seems to be some automatic process that changes reference names when you copy a citation from your sandbox into an article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian whispers

[2] Dang it, I never saw the thread un-redacted, so I can't... wait, what did SarekOfVulcan say just above? Ok, there it is. I might use that article as a ref at Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia at some point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I never saw the thread unredacted either. I'm probably not allowed to suggest that anyone enter the word's geoffrey epstein's wikipedia account into a search engine. So I won't. God forbid we should reveal something that 1) has been reported in mainstream media, and 2) has been reported on on Wikipedia previoulsly, and c) is about a dead paedophile. The WMF would have kittens! DuncanHill (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right, if one searched that, one could encounter a Reddit thread titled who knows what. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! DuncanHill (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it's needed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

G.Edward Griffin

Here is a quotation from Pranksters:making mischief in the modern world:

"Paul's endorsement of G. Edward Griffin's The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve–along with several other positions he holds–has made him an icon for New World Order conspiracy theorists. Griffin's book is laced with standard-issue references to the Council on Foreign Relations, W. Cleon Skousen, Carroll Quigley, the Rothschild family, and the Bavarian Illuminati (a branch of which, the author suggests, played a role in assassinating Abraham Lincoln). Griffin was also a longtime affiliate of the John Birch Society, which published several of his nutty books. In Paul's blurb for The Creature from Jekyll Island, he calls it "a superb analysis deserving serious attention by all Americans. Be prepared for one heck of a journey through time and mind." It sure is. The congressman is a principled libertarian conservative whose positions on civil liberties, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the legalization of drugs overlap with those of many people on the left. He is a learned man and not a nut. However, when this congressman appears on Alex Jones's show, endorses Bircher books about a Federal Reserve conspiracy, and warns of nonexistent plans for a NAFTA Superhighway, it shows how the fringe ideas discussed throughout this book have infiltrated substantial parts of the political mainstream."

As you can see there is nothing here which cites any evidence which disproves Griffin's ideas. It just calls it "nutty". Do you have any other quotes from this book to disprove his theories regarding the federal reserve? If not then either find a better source or stop reverting my edits to the preamble of G.Edward Griffin's page.

As you said on the edit history I have looked through the talk page and there are multiple people who have criticised this source yet everyone who is in favour of using this source simply runs away or just blindly asserts it as an authority despite the valid criticisms of it.

Please provide another quote or source or I will reinstate my edit. King of Crimson (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Crimson: the correct place to discuss article content is the article talk page, not here. Secondly, you've mis-read the edit history, it was another editor who told you to see multiple prior discussions. DuncanHill (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see I'll direct this to them.I should say though I did make a topic for this on the talk page and got no response which is why I took it into user's personal talk pages. King of Crimson (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom)

It was late at night, and I was tired. I missed some of the refs I needed to copy over. Thank you for inserting the rest!! Buckshot06 (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification requested on “massive reference errors”

Hello, I saw your revert on Antisemitism in Poland with the note “massive reference errors,” and I’d like to clarify what specific issues you’re referring to.

My edits primarily involved rewording existing content for neutrality and attribution, rather than removing sources. If any citations became disconnected from the text or were inadvertently affected during restructuring, that was unintentional and I’m happy to correct it.

Could you please point to the specific diffs or passages where the reference errors occurred? That would make it much easier to address the problem directly.

A full revert without identifying the exact issues makes it difficult to improve the article collaboratively, especially when the changes were aimed at aligning the text more closely with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.

I’m happy to work through any concrete problems and restore or adjust citations as needed.

Thanks. -~2026-22316-36 (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-22316-36: there were 12 undefined refnames, and an undefined sfn. It looks like you have removed the text that contained the definitions without bothering to replace them. It's clear now I look at the history that you are edit-warring. You need to stop that, and go to the article talk-page, explain there the changes you want to make, and seek consensus for them. Otherwise you are VERY likely to get blocked. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and query

Hi DuncanHill, thanks for this edit. I am curious if you know why the original version doesn't work; the documentation at Template:Cite OEIS says By default, this template generates a ref anchor which can be addressed using {{sfn|Sloane "sequence number"}} etc. so I'm quite puzzled! Also curious if you know why this doesn't work. Thanks for any thoughts or any pointers to a better place to ask. --JBL (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JayBeeEll: Hi, well this edit added the quotation marks to {{sfn|Sloane A145901}} fix the reference. It seems that Template:Cite OEIS needs the quotation marks around the sequence number. The {{sfn whitelist}} which I added was to fix a false-positive error message that is a common problem with templates which generate ref anchors. I suppose the best place to ask about Template:Cite OEIS would be Template talk:Cite OEIS. I try to avoid such "clever" templates myself. DuncanHill (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I think your last advice (to avoid the template entirely) is good, I'll poke at it and see if I can get something reasonable from the standard citation templates. --JBL (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Blanking

Hi, I just want to make clear I was just rearchiving what was unarchived. The other user (PBugaboo) took it out of the archive and I was just trying to restore it to the archive. I was not intending to hide or remove sections without waiting for the bot. Sorry if that was not appropriate. Thank you for your understanding. IzzySwag (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have also now had to move it from WP:AN to its original posting location, WP:ANI. IzzySwag (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@IzzySwag: OK, I see now what you mean. It wasn't clear at the time. DuncanHill (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a lil bit of a confusing situation. Thanks for your understanding. Have a good one. IzzySwag (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bro Nigel just needs a helping hand

Are you even listening to this godforsaken page I told you Nigel’s got his future in British steel what’s you are you even doing this really bro Nigel says he’s happy so he must be happy you are making Nigel sad don’t make Nigel sad KajagoogooSonichu (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

George I

I can´t see the multiple errors you´re claiming i have introduced. And even if so the article wasn´t even well cited before. So instead reverse my edit you just could have noticed me and i would have it fixed. Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.Lovecraft: There were Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors for "Brunner 2020, pp. 63–82", "Farquhar, p. 152", and "Lease 1950, pp. 42–47". It is your responsibility to avoid these errors - especially in a Featured Article. I've fixed a lot of similar errors by you in other articles, and mentioned them to you before on your talk page. I use edit summaries like this one to help you and others avoid such mistakes. DuncanHill (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

T. W. Wood

Should you be inclined, T. W. Wood's dates are a mess (as indicated in the first footnote). No worries if you have better things to do, especially on this lovely holiday Monday. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Nowhere near enough info to work with. Far too common a name. There was a Thomas William Wood baptised in Chatham as the Darwin people say, but I can't see that it has to be the same one. Might try again when the heat subsides to more civilised levels. DuncanHill (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! No sooner have I typed the above, than I find The Field - Saturday 25 February 1882, page 26. Letter from W. B. Tegetmeier on "The Late Mr T. W. Wood". Mention that he illustrated works by Darwin and Wallace, and the articles by Professor Newton for the new edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica. DuncanHill (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Evening News (London) - Tuesday 21 February 1882, Page 1 deaths column, "Wood - on the 14th inst., Thomas William Wood, F.Z.S, late of 14, Kempsford-gardens, West Brompton, second son of the late Thomas William Wood, of Hampton House, Chatham, aged 48 years". Identical notice in Morning Post - Wednesday 22 February 1882, Page 1 deaths column. DuncanHill (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Newton was Alfred Newton. DuncanHill (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work; thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Post-disco

Could you add this template to the page for new wave music? ~2026-30137-97 (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-30137-97: You should ask at Talk:New wave music. DuncanHill (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

British English spelling: Judgement vs Judgment

My Oxford Dictionary says:

judgement (also judgment)

... implying that the spelling with an E is prefereable in British English, but that the spelling without is also used. So your reversal of my spelling change could well be right ... however I'd like to know what your source is for saying "In legal context[s] BrEng uses judgement."

Reading your source will be helpful because it will add to my knowledge of the subtelties of BrEng and AmEng spelling 😊. Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Spel-Punc-Gram: Hi, thanks for getting in touch. The spelling with an E is as you say normal in British English, but with the exception of legal contexts. The OED (full online version) says under 'judgement II "The action or result of pronouncing a legal decision, and related uses." - "In British use conventionally written judgment in this and related legal senses, compounds, etc." and refers us to a note in the Etymology section. The note says "The word is found in spellings with ‑dgm‑ from the early 16th cent., and by the late 17th cent. judgment had become the prevailing spelling, although judgement was still commonly found. Kersey (1702) is an unusually early example of a dictionary in which the headword form was given as judgement. During the 19th cent. the form judgement gained in frequency in British contexts, and is now the usual spelling in general British use, but judgment has remained the standard spelling in British legal contexts when used to refer to a judicial decision (see sense II.8), as well as in U.S. usage." All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for such a detailed reply! Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Yorktown

Regarding these complaints, please focus your irritation not at the GA process but instead at the idiosyncrasies of User:وسيم. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: There are 85 Good Articles with Harv/sfn no-target errors, and 2781 Good Articles with unsourced statements. I'm sure they can't all be blamed on one editor. DuncanHill (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, but many of the former can be blamed on other editors, and most of the latter date back to before requirements for inline statements at GA (of course, there is still no such requirement for non-GAs). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stop wasting my time with your pettifogging complaints. Quite why anyone would go out of their way to have a go at someone for fixing errors I really don't know and don't care. DuncanHill (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant no offence. Thank you very much for all you do to resolve citation errors. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In appreciation

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For helping keep Wikipedia running with behind-the-scenes fixes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much

		The Help Desk Barnstar
		I never would've figured out that ref formatting for Junius Wilson otherwise. Thanks for your assistance at the Help Desk. Happy editing! APK hi :-) (talk) 09:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]