User talk:DuncanHill/Archives/2009/January

Kernewek!

Yo, a Dhuncan, a vab an gusul wann, yth os kepar hag eghen nownek! 86.132.144.137 (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits which either removed cited material, added uncited material, or inserted a POV slant into an article by the use of weasel words. This is an English-language Wikipedia, and it is disruptive (and indeed rude) to post comments which cannot be understood by the very great majority of editors. Please provide a translation. DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Translation of original message - "Hi Duncan, son of weak counsel, you are like a hungry species!". DuncanHill (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Parishes again

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_28#Category:Parishes of the United Kingdom Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_28#Category:Parishes of Wales Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_28#Category:Parishes of Europe Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_28#Category:Parishes of North America

Nominator's rationale: Rename. More accurate name, and consistent with other "civil parishes in" categories. "Parish" has different meanings in different localities. All categories should be clear if they contain civil (or geographical) parishes or church parishes. Note that this discussion of the same question (closed to divide the question) resulted in 5 Support rename votes, 1 Oppose vote, and 2 that abstained on most categories. I have looked at much more than these pages listed and the categories do all reflect civil parishes.--Carlaude ^(talk) 03:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• All the English parishes were changed without opposition.
• Please Support --Carlaude ^(talk) 17:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Ring out the old,
and Ring in the new.
Happy New Year!
From FloNight

Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear DuncanHill,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Georgia

I'll keep that in mind, thanks for letting me know. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN

Let's just move on. You're a damn good editor and it's not doing either one of us any good. --Smashville^talk 20:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not wish to continue with this discussion, thank you for the kind words about my contributions. DuncanHill (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem...hope you have a good rest of the day/evening. --Smashville^talk 21:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion of User talk:Encyclopediaofalabama

For reasons outlined by ST47 and TimVickers, I don't really want to undelete this permanently without going thru DRV, as I'm not sure what policy legs I have to stand on, or what good it would serve. But since it's bothering you (and since is was there for all to see until a few hours ago!), I see nothing wrong with undeleting it for a short time so you can read it and confirm what was, or was not, there. Then, if you feel it should be undeleted permanently, you'd have to wade thru the DRV instructions.

Is that a fair compromise? --barneca (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It is, but I really cannot be bothered with it anymore, so don't put yourself out. An admin has decided to remove history of things that have happened on Wikipedia, and that clearly is the way most admins like to operate, and I do not have the energy to waste trying to maintain an accurate record of Wikipedians' interactions. I do appreciate the offer, but I feel like I'm pissing into the wind in trying to preserve a true record of things that happen on this website. It would only make me even more disillusioned than I already am to continue with this. DuncanHill (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, well, I already just went ahead and did it before I saw this, and I'll re-delete in a little while. Look or don't look, your choice. I realize I'm part of the cabal, but please consider the possibility that you're assuming sinister motives where none was intended. As for having an accurate record of all interactions, that ship sailed a long time ago; there are much bigger issues than Encyclopediaofalabama's talk page. That's good and that's bad. --barneca (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I've had enough of this one. I won't comment on the motives or competence of admins in general, because I know I would get either a level-4 warning or a block for it. DuncanHill (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Dammit, I've forgotten where the template is to warn someone about insinuating that admins aren't always perfect and pure of heart. I thought it was {{uw-Lèse majesté4im}}, but there's nothing there... --barneca (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not you I was worried about! Meantime, maybe you'd agree that using Wikipedia to promote racial hatred is very nearly as bad as adding links to a proper encyclopædia? 'Cos if so, the thread on AN below the one I started is the one to look at. DuncanHill (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

it's not a red link anymore!

{{uw-Lèse majesté4im}}

so what do you think? --barneca (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm, well, I've got Category:Rouge admins on my watchlist to object to if it turns blue again - it's not really a kind of humour that I appreciate. DuncanHill (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry, feel free to delete. --barneca (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's OK, I don't delete from my talkpage (of course, I can't delete from my talkpage, but I don't blank either if I can help it), and I knew your intent was good anyway. DuncanHill (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RD and TOAT.

Your comment on the WP:RD talk page: "Enough already - TOAT, start treating others like equals and stop trying to stifle debate (as you did with Steve's proposal above)..." - resulted in long and heartfelt apology from TOAT to me on my talk page. The odd thing was that I didn't feel I was stifled - and I hardly remembered what TOAT had said on that proposal anyway! (It was basically defeated by consensus). Anyway - I'm sure you were pushed to breaking point in that mini-flamefestdebate - but I don't think things are really as heated as you think. Stifling a debate on Wikipedia is like putting out a fire with gasoline...you can actually do it if you try hard enough but most of the time all you get is a much bigger fire. This is a self-correcting mechanism! So thanks for sticking up for me - but it really wasn't necessary! SteveBaker (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You're a very decent man Steve, a good example to us all :) Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom proposal

May I trouble you to expand your voting comment please, on the proposal's talk page? Many thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Tag Advice

You're an idiot. You can't even get a Speedy Deletion tag correct - R3 not G3. Still thanks, this was a useful test. Raul654 (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaseitem1011 (talk • contribs)

Ref desk question

Hi I've left message here. Thank you--202.168.229.245 (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've answered there. DuncanHill (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

John Tosh

Duncan, thanks for removing the notability tag and reverting the offensive material.I have been watching the page and have deleted about three or four attempts to add this stuff by someone (or more than one) at Roehampton. Regards --Graham Lippiatt (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

List of civil parishes in Cornwall

Thanks for the amendments you made to the list. I understand the sensitivity of referring to Cornwall, England, and was a bit unhappy about it myself. Must admit, I think the compromise is a bit messy, but if that's what's been agreed on, so be it.

I personally would have left the proposed parishes in the St Austell area off the list until they have actually been created, but I'm not going to quibble too much about that either. Shrewsbury has been added to the Shropshire list, and I'm a little doubtful whether that's actually been created yet.

I don't see the point of noting the districts in the "administrative county" and moving the "Isles of Scilly". There are many ceremonial counties in England where the administrative and ceremonial counties differ (Cheshire, Buckinghamshire, Kent, Lancashire and Essex to name just five}. The consensus worked out was that the lists would be by ceremonial county (great for Stockton on Tees, which is split between two of them!), not by administrative county, and a further breakdown has not been found to be necessary for any other county. Incidentally, that's why there is a separate page for Bristol, and individual pages for the City of London and Greater London (although administratively the City of London is included in Greater London, they are two different ceremonial counties). In any case, the problem will be solved in April, when the page will be re-ordered into just two categories : Cornwall and Isles of Scilly. Skinsmoke (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree the compromise is messy - but it seems to work most of the time!

The Isles of Scilly are a bit odd - they have never (afaik) been administered as part of Cornwall, so are different from the more modern Unitary Authorities. DuncanHill (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

re User:Pediapress

Duncan, are you willing to nip over to the above page and sort it out - so even numbskull sysops like yours truly are hesitant in dropping delete notices and the like on it? I am not convinced it is the right use of userspace, but I have no idea where it should otherwise go either. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll put a link to the Foundation press release on the userpage and on the talk page too. I had never heard of it before, but I know that other users have asked for such a facility before - until now it seems that no-one on Wikipedia was aware of it! DuncanHill (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I have changed the link above so it points at it - although they seem to call themselves PediaPress but have a slightly different username... LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What.... a new editor having trouble getting their name right? Gosh, I'm sure that hasn't happened before! DuncanHill (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I must say I am uncertain about your tone, young man! Les Heard AvenUe (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I am tying to fix the stub for superfical deposits and it requires merging realivent information which is scattered and under its own sub article when it is only a type of superfical deposit i apoligize for any typo as im using my OSK 66.255.34.162 (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks66.255.34.162 (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Cornwallmainline.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:Cornwallmainline.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot by forbidding the use of Wikipedia screenshots on Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Joined the forces?

He also left the forces and is not still a member, which is why I suggested "served". -- Evertype·✆ 18:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've clarified it. DuncanHill (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiMark

Hi, I'm posting in regards to your bug report with WikiMark. I see from your contributions that the WikiMarks you added did indeed not get saved anywhere. Did you create the Special:Mypage/WikiMarks page before trying to add marks? I appreciate the report! — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 03:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and as an addition, if you decide to give the script another go, once you click the tab to add a new Wikimark, you should wait until you see the "??? article has been added to your wikimarks" notice on the top of the page you're on. This is because it takes some seconds to get the mark added. Thanks! — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 03:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're still monitoring the WikiMark talk page, so I thought I'd pop in and let you know that I managed to make the script Safari-compatible. Tested & working! :) — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 16:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am - just saw it there. Am playing about with Chrome at the moment, will switch back to Safari presently and give it a try (not sure whether I prefer Chrome or not yet). Many thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Tone

To clarify - I am not talking about specific words, but the aggressiveness in general. Yes, we know that both sides are very upset at the other side. We know exactly how people feel about those of the other side. What will saying something everyone knows accomplish? It wont do much of anything but cause a conflict. We don't want that, and I would like to make sure there are as few casualties from this mess as possible. Please understand, and please realize that we need to slow down the pace of things, try to think without the cloud of emotions, and find solutions instead of causing more bad blood and problems. Does that make sense? My words are not a criticism of you, but more of an attempt to make sure that it doesn't stir up anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but patience has its limits, and there are times when failing to speak openly and honestly can be damaging. Until Arbcom realize the damage that FT2 is causing to them and to the wider community they will be unable to achieve any of the improvements which they plan. It's a very great shame that he didn't do the clever thing and resign the day before Mr Wales announced the new Arbitrators. DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Its perfectly acceptable for you to feel that way. However, you do not need to add unnecessary characterizations that only give people a reason to dismiss your comments. Does that make sense? Right now, you were very straight forward and to the point without anything that could detract from your point. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the thing is, I can't believe those calling for a desysop, and FT2 has persistently failed to be honest. I don't really know any other way of saying that. DuncanHill (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's more of the same, and just shows the ugly side of human nature. I'm not surprised. Nothing will get your head on the chopping block faster than dissing an Anointed One. If Bish is desysopped and FT2 remains on the board, I really have to consider finding a new hobby. And I'm just a low-level gnome type, only here to assist the real contributors. I'm not a non-fiction writer at all, but I know writing for something is like giving blood, even if it's not purely creative. I can't imagine how you serious editors feel. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Victoria (Australia)

Thanks! I knew that but the odd few slip through, if you find any the best thing to do would be to just fix them up yourself as your already there looking at them. If they're not fixed then me or someone else has to hunt them down and fix them. Cheers. Nick carson (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool, no worries. Nick carson (talk) 05:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Duncan, thank you for correcting my Victoria link boo-boo in the Glen Waverley Hawks article. I'll try to be more careful. Roaming27 (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeffpw

Restored everything but the copyvio; good call! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Help desk

Hello again, thank you so much for your prompt response to my problem with references. I see that the current revision includes my references under the new heading Notes while keeping those of the original contributor under References. This is a new concept for me as I didn't find any mention of Notes in the Wiki tutorial for editing. I guess I am still confused as to why the original page includes references that are not correlated to any particular phrase or sentence in the text. I know I have a lot to learn but will persevere. Cheers Devonshire chemist (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Home367

From User talk:Sam Korn

Hi, thanks for your work on this one. Not sure if you noticed but it seems to be the same person as Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jump2255 this one. DuncanHill (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right -- it does indeed appear to be the same user. I now note the range's block log and am considering whether a longer-term block would be appropriate. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 23:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There was another case too, linked from the Jump2255 case. The latest one seems to have started almost as soon as the last block ended, I think. DuncanHill (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the block from a one-month soft-block to a year-long hard-block. Thanks for pointing me towards this! [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

your disclaimer

"and you hold yourself liable for any violation of law, Wikipedia policies, service providers Terms of Service, and other consequence of my making public of such information." You do realise that this is totally without legal enforceability? If I e-mail you and do not hold myself liable for the consequences of you republishing, there wouldn't be a blasted thing you could do about it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have something you wish to email me about? DuncanHill (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If I did, I certainly would choose not to, due to the unwelcome tone. However, I would not be legally liable for any decision you took to republish.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Will you be questioning admins with similar disclaimers, or only me? DuncanHill (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In over three years here, I've never seen any wikipedian with a similar disclaimer.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? Well, I copied it from someone else, and I have seen other similar disclaimers on other user talk pages. I have it mainly because I do not want to be lobbied off-wiki about Wikipedia matters. If someone emails me about their private life, then I can't see myself posting the content of their email on-wiki. On the other hand, if someone emails me about Wikipedia, I may publish on-wiki if I think fit. The only time I have done this was when an admin revealed to me in an email that he and another admin were knowingly allowing a banned editor to contribute, and wanted me to persuade another editor to stop questioning them about the sock-account being used by that banned editor. DuncanHill (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You can, of course, republish what you want. A lot of people won't neccessarily like it, but you can do it. However, if you republishing violates the law, copyright, or the wikipedia TOS, you will still be liable - you can't stop that.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So, what brought you here? Anything in particular? Or just trying to make a point? DuncanHill (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Just saw your strange (and I have to say a little aggressive) disclaimer in passing and the lawyer in me wondered if you realised that it was legally ineffective. That's all.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If I want legal advice I'll go to a real lawyer, not some anonymous guy off the internet, thanks. Strange you didn't notice it last time you were here. DuncanHill (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Yes, I don't remember being here before. But since you are on my watchlist, I guess I must have been. I obviously didn't see or read it last time, so you'd not be safe in assuming anyone who e-mails you has necessarily read it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern for my wellfare. Now, is that all? Or were you hoping for something more juicy when you saw Sam Korn's name pop up next to mine on your watchlist? DuncanHill (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Sam is not that intriguing actually.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting help with the new article

Do you know of any folks who would be good to ask for help with the new article you moved to the mainspace for me? Not sure where to start asking for help in that regard. H₂O Shipper 03:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

William Lingard

(If these notes become annoying to you, just let me know.) I went through the community portal and found this article in the backlogged August 2007 articles in need of wikifying, so I worked on it quite a bit. If you wouldn't mind taking a look and telling me what you think, I'd appreciate it. Also, if taking a look at stuff I'm working on gets old for you, would you mind pointing me to folks that I could collaborate with, other than wikiprojects? I'm looking more for groups of 4 or 5 editors that kind of work together loosely, in more of a friendly way than a formal way. H₂O Shipper 01:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Praxed

Hi Duncan,

Thanks so much for answering my question! I've created the Praxed redirect so that no one will have to wonder again.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(RC) locate me (my mistaken reverting) Thanks

Thanks for catching that and letting me know. [1] I misinterpreted the explanation "added" as misleading since they were deleting something :) ... and the previous patroller had reverted it which confirmed my mis-perception... just long enough to hit the revert button, but not the warn -- Excuses, excuses. :) Again, my thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Mistaken warning

Thanks for letting me know - will be more careful in the future - Fastily (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I need to construct a prototype article

Hello, I'm intending to construct my first article, I fear that if i do it outright I might breach severall wikipedia policys, so I need a subpage on my userpage to build myself a prototype to be reviewed by, how do I do that? Gsmgm (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Carrick Roads

I’ve moved the claim about "the 3rd largest harbour" to the talk page, as it needs fixing; do you have any thoughts on the subject? Swanny18 (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Hm, no that's a WP:Huggle report. I can;t say what has happened behind the scenes. Rich Farmbrough, 17:01 22 January 2009 (UTC).

The Black Robe

I started this stub today, as I felt it was a travesty that one of Wilkie Collins' books didn't have an article. However, I'm pathetic at figuring out what categories, wikiprojects, etc. that these articles fit. Could you help with that, as you've done with my other articles so far? BTW, I'm working up a plot summary off-line, and hope to have it placed soon. I will also try to develop some research for the "Critical reception" section ASAP. H₂O Shipper 19:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you mind taking a look and seeing what's wrong with the image thing? I put in the infobox, but the image won't work with it, and I can't figure out why. H₂O Shipper 22:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, you're fast! Thanks again, H₂O Shipper 22:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually copied that infobox over from one of Collins' other, more high profile books, so I'm not sure about the formatting thing. However you found it so quickly, I really appreciate all the help you've been giving me! H₂O Shipper 12:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User talk:Dan Lal Khurana

A tag has been placed on User talk:Dan Lal Khurana, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:User talk:Dan Lal Khurana|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: rope bridges

Your idea makes plenty of sense to me. It's a little hard to imagine the Incas getting into those gorges in the first place, but I suppose that (having enough ropes to make a bridge) would be able to spare one to lower a man or two down the cliff.

At least I know a small bit about pioneering: I earned the BSA's Pioneering merit badge, although we built a tower rather than a bridge. It wasn't the best class (our instructor didn't know how to tie several knots, including a sheepshank), but we got it done, and at least I understand the idea. We definitely couldn't tie a monkey's fist (I don't think I know anyone who can), but I'm sure it would work better than holding one end of the rope and trying to throw the coil across.

Thanks for the sensible explanation :-) Nyttend (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting

I'm not trying to chase you off, we've been over the naming issue for months, and the blanket comment simply added nothing. If you meant something else, please expand it. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Forget about it. If that's how you welcome someone who has newly come to a discussion, then I don't want to be a part of it. The top of that page shows just how US-centric your wikiproject is in its choice of terminology. If new voices trying to address that, in however small a way, get welcomed with comments like yours then I do not feel that it is a project of which I wish to be a part. DuncanHill (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. One last thing then I'll leave you alone. My way of reacting to Wikipedia talk pages is not representative of the group, they are usually much softer, I am much less diplomatic, it's something I recognize, but I do not want you to feel that all in the group are that way. Further, looking at the terminology at the top, to me it appears (because we really have tried) to strive for balance, that's what the current discussion is all about. We wholly acknowledge that the US view is only one view, and we seek neutrality. The bulk of the users of the 'pedia (and the Internet) are Americans, so some systemic bias is inevitable. But it shows "US" view, as well as "European/world" view in that chart, please don't read into it what is not there. Your choice to stay or leave is your own, but don't label the group just because I am prickly. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Guides on WOSM-activities

Many of the girls on this picture (File:Eurojam_song.jpg) may be called guides because they are (also) member of the WAGGGS and call themselves Guide. Lots of European n.s.o's have a double membership for their girls, WOSM and WAGGGS. And also WOSM-activities are open for WAGGGS-members. --Egel _Reaction? 15:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The information page for the image makes no mention of Guides. DuncanHill (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Boy Scout

Well done so far. expect reversion, however. (I hope I am being too cynically pessimistic.) Albatross2147 (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

AN comment and help me

I saw the AN comment about the user asking for help. This is a problem in Wikipedia. I suspect that the user, who has a low edit count, is being punished and an excuse given to block the person. If that is not the case, it is a potential loophole that certain people can use to abuse and attack people. That's really too bad that Wikipedia is manipulated by others who are intend on harming editors.

If you don't understand what I am discussing, it is not surprising since it is a sneaky way that certain people can hurt other editors without being detected. I wish Wikipedia were more hospitable and that people just concentrate on good editing. An example of abuse in a way similar to what happened to this other user would be if User X edited something that User Y did not like. Rather than discuss, User Y can block User X's computer with the excuse that it is a zombie computer. User X is then effectively banned for life. Chergles (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Me again

Could you take a look at this list that I created, and let me know what you think? I know it's not complete or anything, but I'm not sure what all work needs to be done. I used the "ABC" ToC thing I found on another list, but other than that, my formating there isn't great, I know. H₂O Shipper 01:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help. I don't know about the FL thing, but I'll have a peek at the link you gave. You've been a real liferaft helping out with the cats and stuff on the articles I write. H₂O Shipper 01:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)