User talk:DuncanHill

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

User talk pages and watchlist[edit]

I have significantly reduced the size of my watchlist, including the removal of all user talk pages from it, and intend to reduce it much further. DuncanHill (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Lancelot Barrington-Ward[edit]

Thanks for the helpful edits. The appendectomy was done in Aberdeen by Sir John Marnoch on 14 Sept 1914. See for details and discussion. Plarr's I think lifted this info from the BMJ which had it wrong. B-W isn't mentioned in the account by Sir John Reid, who was at the procedure. In 1914 B-W had only been appointed assistant surgeon at GOS. The detail at is convincing. Papamac (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Iainmacintyre: It might be helpful for that to be mentioned on the article talk page. Removals of cited material with no explanation beyond a bald claim that it "was incorrect" are always likely to be reverted on sight. DuncanHill (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes agreed, just done that. Papamac (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


DuncanHill (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, meta admin here. Would you be comfortable sending your block message so I can review the stuff? Email is fine. — regards, Revi 19:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Nevermind: someone else took care of it who didn't realize I was looking. It should be good to go. — regards, Revi 19:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@-revi: I was just going to say that and edit conflicted with you! Thank you for your offer of help. DuncanHill (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Matthias Jakob Schleiden.gif[edit]


The file File:Matthias Jakob Schleiden.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


Don't forget that Template:unsigned says "This template should always be substituted". If you don't, the edit history gets cluttered by extra entries when the bot turns up to correct the mistaken transclusion. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I shall try. Adding unsigned templates is a thankless and solitary task though, so I might just not bother with them at all. DuncanHill (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Removal of my edit on Jonathan Aitken wikipedia page[edit]

Hello. I am quite new to wikipedia editing so I am sorry if I didn't follow the correct procedure, but I do maintain that the word 'Iraq' is inaccurate here. The very source cited for this information makes it very clear that it was infact Iran that BMARC allegedly shipped arms to. -- (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Iran has been restored. Moriori (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Marie Stopes | Eugenics - use of incorrect grammar[edit]

Hello Duncan.

Thanks for your enlightening contribution about Marie Stopes.

Re my revision of 13:19, 22 June 2019 ("the unhappy fate of he" > "the unhappy fate of he [sic]", but should be amended to "the unhappy fate of him" if the sentence is not a direct quote. It is unclear whether it is or not.)

Whether or not the text I corrected is word-for-word part of a quotation, "fate of he" is never grammatically correct. You didn't say whether the text is part of a quotation. If it is, then I assume that when you say it is correct, you mean the quotation is correct, and "[sic]" should be included to indicate that the error is in the quotation. Putting that part of the text that is a literal quotation would also be helpful.

If the words are yours, however, you should restore my correction, that is, replacing "he" with "him".

Harry Audus (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hockey vs. field hockey[edit]

Why on earth would you revert my page move without addressing my reasons for the move? Every single field hockey national team uses "field hockey", even looking at both genders; the England men's team was the only outlier. If you want the England men's team to have a different title to literally every other team, you'd better have a damn good reason. – PeeJay 16:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

You chose to ignore WP:ENGVAR and to change a title that had been stable for several years. You did this without any attempt at discussion. The term "field hockey" is not used in British English, and is not used by the team or the national governing body linked in the lead. Per WP:BRD you should now propose your change on the article talk page, instead of disruptively changing back to your personal preference. DuncanHill (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I am discussing it with you now. So why do you think WP:ENGVAR overrides WP:CONSISTENCY? As I explained, every single other article about national field hockey teams uses the term "field hockey", even the England women's team. It doesn't make sense for this one to be the only one that doesn't follow that rule, especially when "field hockey" is a perfectly acceptable term for the sport. Even the national governing body uses that term many times on their website. Obviously ice hockey isn't particularly prevalent over here, hence there's usually no need for them to differentiate themselves from the "other" sport, but they do use it. – PeeJay 16:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Bold, revert, discuss. Not, bold, revert, revert, demand "damn good reason" while ignoring the edit summary of my move. And the discussion should be on the article talk page. I'm not willing to discuss this further with you here. You should not have reverted my reversion, and you should have gone to the talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
You sound stressed. Something getting you down today? Wanna talk about it? – PeeJay 17:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Daisy (advertisement)‎[edit]

Hi Just asking whether i should put these in the article when talking about Daisy remakes, parodies and pastiches. I watched the 2010 remake and the child in it recites pretty much the same script as the original, but has a different hair colour, cut, and is not a toddler like 1964 Daisy. Andrew Cuomo's Daisy remake for his campaign used a blonde girl that was also older than Daisy '64. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Paul Benjamin Austin: It is not a subject of which I have any knowledge. The best place to ask about any changes you are thinking to make is the article talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)