User talk:DuncanHill

Thank you for correcting my misidentification of the figures in the Beardsley drawing for Wilde's Salomé at the article on Oscar Wilde.

When I first saw the effect of your act of reversion, I was taken aback. I'd thought I'd known with certainty. Then I looked more closely at all the evidence, both internal (the details of the clothing of the figure on the lefthand side of the illustration: were they signifiers of the garb of a pampered princess, or that of a harrowed harbinger?) and external (how had others identified those figures depicted by Beardsley so long ago? what of the appearance of these characters in the series's other stations?).

You were certainly correct to have reversed my edit. I appreciate the role you have played in the development of my skills of comprehension and research. And thank you for having improved Wikipedia with your great range and great depth of contributions to the online encyclopedia.

Knowledge and the truth

Ebb the evil tide

Knowledge of the truth

Shall wend the wrong aright

The blank state of your Talk page shows me that the words I now write will not inform posterity. But placid lies my mind. The anxiety that I'd felt—felt when I'd considered the possibility of my having unintentionally polluted this pristine place—is mitigated by my faith in the impending erasure of this written record of my thoughts. May your fortune be the best and may our world someday swim in that rich love which flows forth in floods from the fount found in your heart. —catsmoke ^talk 20:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Catsmoke: Thank you - what a thoughtful and kind message. Even though I do blank this page from time to time your words will always be in its history. I can see you are putting a lot of effort and care into your work on Oscar Wilde, and that is greatly appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: You are most welcome. And I have neglected to share news of a great event. Your correction of my error led to my discovery of a work of art that within the space of a few hours has already ensconced itself as a cornerstone in the structure of my personal cultural milieu. Its text shall delight me and enrich my life for all my days remaining. An online edition may be found at the Internet Archive website: An English translation of the Salomé of Oscar Wilde. —catsmoke ^talk 21:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Catsmoke I came to DuncanHill's talk page for an entirely unrelated reason but I couldn't help myself in expressing that Your correction of my error led to my discovery of a work of art that within the space of a few hours has already ensconced itself as a cornerstone in the structure of my personal cultural milieu. is one of the most beautifully crafted and eloquent sentences I have ever encountered on a Wikipedia talk page. It is far superior to anything I could write myself. Kudos and thank you for brightening my day with this. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 21:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DuncanHill, thanks for the date change for the Hough book at HMS Endeavour. Just in passing though, my edition of Hough is this one which is 1994. It's not the most important issue in the world, but do you mind if I change it back?

As random trivia I notice we've both been here forever but the only page we seem to intersect on is Endeavour :)-- Euryalus (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: Hi, I changed it to 1995 because on going back through the article history that is the date you used when you added the source on 18 July 2009. I see now there seems to have been some confusion including this change, and some others which I do not have time to find for you. This kind of confusion is common when people use shortened references, they leave even the editor who added them in the first place confused, let alone anyone who tries to look them up later. As you have a copy of Gough then what you need to do is check every reference to Gough in the article to make sure the page numbers are correct, and correct those where necessary and also correct the source in the citation template to make sure it matches. Sorry I have to rush now, probably won't be back on for a day or so. DuncanHill (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trina_Robbins&oldid=prev&diff=1222866130 you undid the whole of my edit including the addition of Internet Archive links and the publisher correction - based on the source and appearing in the LC ad OCLC entries - and wrote "Cause several Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors" in the edit summary. What does the summary mean? Why did you revert? Why didn't you at least leave the links and correction? Mcljlm (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcljlm: I undid your edit because it caused several Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you click on that link you will see "This category holds articles that use any of the short-cite templates ({{harv}} and {{sfn}} template families, and {{harvc}}) where one or more of those short-cite templates do not properly link to a full citation, the target. See guidance at Category:Harv and Sfn template errors to resolve". I undid the whole edit because I do not have the time to pick through your edit to find the wheat amongst the chaff. If you want to add an external link to a citation template, you do it by adding the parameter |url= within the template. If you are changing the edition of a cited work, then you need to check if the page numbers are the same across editions. You can get help at WP:HELPDESK. DuncanHill (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the Sources treated as if they are text-supporting citations rather than in External links format? Mcljlm (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcljlm: Because they are! If you click on the highlighted part of reference 10) Krensky 2007 or 11) Kaplan 2006 in the article then it automatically takes you to the entry in the Sources section. Your changes broke that link. DuncanHill (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to fix the refs. I hate excerpts. Thank you for working on this! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we got them all. Let me know if I can help you with some other dreary task. I owe you one. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clayoquot: Many thanks, looks good to me. DuncanHill (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry for forgetting to restore your edit after I have reverted the socks. I did not notice it as it was sandwiched by those of the sock account and a few IPs used by them. Thank you for your contributions. Cheers, Aintabli (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DuncanHill, I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about the mistake I made with Sfn and SfnRef templates. I think I fixed the issue, but I don't fully know if I resolved it completely.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you post at WP:VPT. I went through and cleared all the references errors in March 2022 (I had started before making an account) before I started on trying to clear the no target errors. I developed a well found distaste (to put it mildly) of transclusion and how badly it sometimes breaks referencing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, well back in April last year you reported them to AIV and they were blocked for a month, but it seems they just came right back after the block so, once I checked the relevant block log for the IP on my watchlist, I went and blocked them again for three years this time. Graham87 (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87: Many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add to that 2A02:C7E:6691:AA00::/64. Graham87 (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching what I forgot to save when editing. However, the "ps=" that I added to the one ref wasn't necessarily a mistake for the "eighteen public schools" text...I guess it would have been better if I would have made it a single ref.
Yeah, that was one of the many articles caught up in a mass GA delisting last year... - Shearonink (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonik: The problem with the "ps" was that it cause an error message"Cite error: The named reference "FOOTNOTEThomas1919397" was defined multiple times with different content ". I think you would have to use something other than sfn to insert a quote like that. DuncanHill (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I feel very embarrassed about the Harv and Sfn error I had in my recent edit. You are extremely kind to pick it up and quietly correct it. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewDalhousie: That really is very kind of you. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you reverted my edit to this page. Please see this sentence from the lede of the article: "After Christine McVie's death in 2022, Nicks said in 2024 that the band would not continue without her." This is a member of the band confirming that the group is officially not continuing, and is supported by reliable sourcing in the body. I will not revert per the edit warring policy and WP:BRD, and I don't doubt that you made this change in good faith, but I ask that you please take recent sourcing into consideration. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffSpaceman: The correct place for discussion about article content is the article talk page, where you will see this has been discussed extensively, and indeed which I mentioned in my edit summary. I do have a notice on this page visible when you edit that says "Discussions about article content belong on article talk pages not here". DuncanHill (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reminding this user to leave an edit summary. I noticed you used Twinkle to make your edit so you may not have seen my previous warning, but I brought this to the user's attention three days ago. They responded indicating that they would remember to leave an edit summary in future but clearly have not heeded my advice. Another warning from an uninvolved editor may make a difference, but I'm wondering if perhaps this should be brought up elsewhere. Perhaps one of the noticeboards? I know edit summaries aren't exactly compulsory but the relevant policy does say that in general all edits should be explained. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 21:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for catching that. I wrote a draft in a sandbox but forgot to add the full reference to the article. Ltwin (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn’t my reason. Would you please see the discussion on my talk page? For all I know the editor is the one who put it there, and there are no reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not my main reason. But I presume you disagree with my comments at the article talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if your edit summaries were clearer in future. For example, if you want people to read your talk page say something like "please see my talk page". Anyway I really don't care. Do whatever you want to the article. Just don't complain when people are misled by your misleading edit summaries. DuncanHill (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot what my edit summary was. It certainly wasn’t meant to be misleading, just the first thing I found.: I hate misleading edit summaries. I put different reasons on the talk page and referred to some good posts on my talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting yourself. Much appreciated. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits at 132nd Tank Regiment (Italy). FYI: I am taking out Parri as source from all Italian the tank articles as I find wild discrepancies between Parri's publication and the official regimental histories as published by the History Office of the Italian Army's General Staff "L'Esercito Italiano verso il 2000". Best regards, noclador (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duncan

I've generatrd an error on the Byzantine Empire article that I'm not sure how to fix. I put a new book which has Kazhdan as a chapter, and he happens to have another book that same year so it was causing a clash. I renamed the chapter as 1990a but now the citation shows an error (even though it pulls it up correctly in the citation, refer to the section in Diplomacy such as reference 234). Any help would be appreciated!

The book: Shepherd, Jonathan; Franklin, Simon, eds. (1992). Byzantine Diplomacy: Papers of the Twenty-fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies. Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies. ISBN 9780860783381.

The error: Kazhdan, Alexander. "1: The Notion of Byzantine Diplomacy". In Shepherd (1990a). Harvc error: no target: CITEREFShepherd1990a (help) Biz (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found a solution. Biz (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Biz: I have fixed several no-target errors, but one remains, "Oikonomides 2005", for which I cannot find a work. You introduced it in this edit. DuncanHill (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I fixed it. Biz (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I want to say thankyou for sorting lifeboat station categories. Must be honest, don't really understand them. When I try to add what I think should be relevant, it doesn't work. So I stick to what does. It's hard enough writing the bloomin pages - so thankyou. MartinOjsyork (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK in question, discussed on the DYK error page, and now deleted subsequent to your last comment, refers to your changing the DYK to add the word "publicly". The source used for the hook said "Having one glass eye is something he never revealed until now." You asked that "publicly" be added, before revealed. That was - in my view - an error. We follow the RSs. Or should.

We don't - or should not - intuit something other than what the RS source says. Because we imagine - without any logical basis whatsoever - that the person may have meant something other than what they clearly said. Your rationale for adding the word was "His eye was removed in sixth grade, so presumably his parents knew." That, your first argument, indicates you did not read the hook accurately. It did not say that nobody "knew." It said that he did not reveal it. Perhaps you are assuming that the parents of a sixth grader only hear that their son has had surgery and now has a glass eye from their child himself. But there is of course no basis for that assumption; I'm not certain why you think it impossible that the parents spoke with the surgeon.

Your next argument for your change was that "whoever sold him the glass eye" .. "presumably" ... "knew." Again, I'm not clear why you, even after it was pointed out, don't see the difference between someone "knowing" and someone being told by the sixth grader - in this case, the surgeon specializing in prosthetic eyes/ocularist who is performing the implant surgery (it's not like someone buys these glass eye implants at a shop, or nowadays through Amazon, as you seem to suggest).

I was disappointed that you did not see that, agree, and support the error being fixed once it was pointed out. You do a great job, but this time I felt let down. Cheers. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:B9B9:A137:5DE7:8234 (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? DuncanHill (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with fixing my sfn errors, it's much appreciated! :) TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please remove the cite in this diff. It's an unreliable source and I was trying to completely remove it. Andre🚐 08:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: The problem was you didn't remove the reference in the text that called it, thus causing a no-target error. I'm not willing to edit a contentious article on someone else's behalf, I suggest you make the changes you want yourself. DuncanHill (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. Andre🚐 18:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From their contribution list, the IP appears to have strong Liverpudlian pride. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor keeps deleting that same fact, without offering anything in support. I've put in a request for page protection. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion on what to use in info and succession boxes at Talk:Foreign_Secretary. Erp (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I’m very grateful for your help fixing the errors my edit caused on the Cuban Revolution. I’ll certainly be more diligent in reviewing citation/ref/sfn guides to avoid such mistakes in the future so others don’t have to clean up after me. — Rosalia ^♡_{you matter.} 19:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've become aware that you've reported me to ANI, which has resulted in a temporary block. I respect this decision of course, and also understand that what I did was edit warring. I do have a genuine question, though; if an editor does what the IP did, flagrantly ignoring all sorts of Wikipedia rules, what am I supposed to do? They would not engage until I revert and would incessantly revert when we started discussing. I tried reaching out through many channels: my help request was deemed inappropriate after it was answered, and nobody came back to revert to status quo after the IP re-reverted my helpers revert. I brought sources and all they ended up bringing to the table was an unverifiable quote and ChatGPT(!). Do I just wait, even in that instance, in an article where no one seems to be interested? If so, it really does feel like the cards are stacked against following the rules here. And once my block has been lifted, do I go back and enforce WP:QUO since nobody else is enforcing it right now?

I do not mean to corner you and I don't mean to make this a 'gotcha' moment or whatever -- I am genuinely wondering. Uness232 (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reported both you and the IP to ANI, and I informed you both. I have taken no part in the dispute other than that, and haven't taken a position on who started it or who is right or wrong, I've just had my watchlist fill up with the pair of you. I have also (as Liz suggested on both your and the IP's talk page) mentioned the RfC at a relevant Wikiproject, hopefully this will bring more editors to the discussion - as indeed the ANI thread is likely to do. Did you try Dispute Resolution? Did you try ANI? Did you ask at the Help Desk or the Tea Room? Did you ask for help finding reliable sources, for example at the RefDesks? There are lots of places to seek help on Wikipedia, but you also need to be patient. There's no point getting yourself blocked. Marshall your sources, use the talk page, report unacceptable behaviour from others to the appropriate venues. DuncanHill (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I could have gone to ANI, you are right. I am fundamentally distraught with how that system has been running though, as most reports go nowhere with no action, and the non-constructive editing continues. I had tried the 'help me' template, but apparently that was not appropriate for this.

Sorry, I was just confused, and unfortunately, I have had this discussion again and again over my time as a Wikipedian. Every so often people get stuck on the word 'subtropical' and barge in with arguments without sources, and re-revert with no regard for Wikipedia policy. I had previously spent days on this over at Talk:Budapest#Climate, and with this it just became too much. I understand your points though, and will try to be more patient. Uness232 (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section is tagged as under construction, and I didn't intend to just leave the references red indefinitely. But thank you for your help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise i missed a few of the in-line citations at 1930 Bago earthquake. Thanks for observing Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 09:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been fixing Harv errors and I'm curious about best practices. You just posted in this edit summary:

(Fixing harv/sfn error. Please watchlist Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors and install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js to help you spot such errors when reading and editing.)

But what's the point of watchlist-ing Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors? —GoldRingChip 20:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldRingChip: So when you look at your watchlist you get to see new additions to the category and realise the utter hopelessness of the task. DuncanHill (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very hopeless, yes. But still... categories auto-populate and a watchlist does not track their additions. See, e.g., the here. Am I missing something? —GoldRingChip 21:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also: is your edit summary auto-generated by some script or do you cut it and paste it as you go along? —GoldRingChip 21:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldRingChip: When you watchlist a category you can see additions and removals. See Help:Watchlist#page_categorization. I can remember a time when you couldn't do this, but it was years ago. My browser remembers edit summaries. When I start to type it comes up with suggestions starting with the same letters. DuncanHill (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That Help link, directed me to Watchlist Prefs settings, but changing them did nothing for this question. Oh well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. And My browser does the same with edit summaries, and that looks like what's going on with yours. —GoldRingChip 22:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldRingChip: IIRC your watchlist won't show any category changes that happened before you changed the setting. Go off an fix an error, or cause one, and you should see it on your watchlist. DuncanHill (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "History" section of the article Prime Minister of the United Kingdom lacks a consistent, insightful, informative description and ultimately a brief historical summary of the position of prime minister. The section has lacked a full historical summarisation for a while now and I have added a expansion template twice due to the absence of such information regarding the office. I was hoping whether you @DuncanHill can take a look at this proposition before delving in to this matter immediately. ZombieBruce (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]